HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain Preliminary.05313-83-84#348864 09/23/92 09:46 Rec $35.00 BK .689 PG 317
/ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty, Clerk., Doc $.00
SECTION M AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT /SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT FOR THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION
THIS AMENDMENT to the First Amended and Restated Planned
Unit Development /Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision ( "PUD Agreement "), being entered into between the
City of Aspen, Colorado ( "City ") and Savanah Li .ted Partnership
( "Savanah" or "Owner ") on_this day of ,
1992, provides as follows:
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, on May 21 1992, Savanah submitted a written peti-
tion to the City pursuant to Section M of the PUD Agreement
seeking an extension in the construction schedule deadline
governing construction and development of Lot 6, the proposed Ice
Rink and Park, within the Aspen Mountain Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was conducted before the City Council on
July 13, 1992, in accordance with Section M of the PUD Agreement
relating to requests for extension of one.or more time periods
required for performance, during which Savanah successfully
demonstrated that the.reasons necessitating the extension in the
existing construction schedule deadline were beyond its control;
and
WHEREAS, Section M of the PUD Agreement authorizes exten-
sions of the time periods for construction schedules upon a
proper showing; and
WHEREAS, Section 0(6) of the PUD agreement authorizes
amendments to the Agreement by written instrument executed by the
parties thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions as contained herein, it,is agreed that the provisions
hereinbelow shall amend the PUD Agreement as follows:
1. Savanah's construction schedule deadlines as set forth
in Section. A2 of the PUD Agreement,.and as previously amended by
those Section M amendments executed on June 11, 1990, (recorded
in Book 627 at Page 457 in the records of the Pitkin County ,
Recorder), and on June 10, 1991, (recorded in Book 654 at Page
418 in the records of the Pitkin County Recorder), are amended to
provide as follows:
From To
Certificate of Occupancy
Ice Rink /Park 10/1/92 10/1/93
•
#348864 09/23/92 09 :46 Rec $35.00 BK 699 PG 318
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.Oil
2. The amended construction schedule deadline as provided
for in paragraph 1 above shall be and remain in force and effect
only insofar as Savanah complies with all of those terms and
conditions as set forth in that written decision of the City
Council of the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and
incorporated herein that was issued upon and in response to
;Savanah's petition of May 20, 1992, seeking a Section M amend-
ment.
3.. All other terms and conditions of the PUD Agreement and
the previous Section M amendments dated June 11, 1990, and June
10, 1991, not inconsistent with or superseded by this amendment,
shall remain in full force and effect.
. 4. This amendment document shall be promptly recorded in
the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
signatures on the.day and year as first written above.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
By : �� 3. ! 3.....w"v
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
424��� V 1_,6L
Kathryn Lt. Koch, City Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
The fore ng instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of 01 1992, by John S. Bennett as Mayor and
Kathryn S. Koch a City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
ASS'.. MY HAND' AND OFFICIAL - /SEAL.
mission expires:
Notary Public
2
6eq PG
#348864 09*/9 09 :46 Rec X35.0 0 . •
Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 319
4
By:
By:
AM AS TO ORM:
Attor,ey of Savanah Limited
Partnership
600 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
Address
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
ASPEN ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL,
INC., General Partner
_f �e " ';611 atl_
L, ��' , 49 A&
Charles E. Wallace
Vice- President
STATE OF C'al;fornia )
ss.
County of T,ns Angeles )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
4th day of September 1992, by Charles E. Wallace,
Vice - President
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: May 16, 1995
OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL
LAURIE SIMN
No PubliCalifornia
c =
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Notar y Public Laurie Simon
My Comm. Expiros MAY 16.1995
" _2049 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA
Address
3
X351804 1 ^ / 14 10:33 Rec $5 e 00 Bf 697 F�
Silvia Davis, -'it.k:in Cnty Clerk:-; Doc .� -00
COVENANT DESIGNATING PARKING SPACES
FOR EMPLOYEE USE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that
Savanah Limited Partnership, a District of Columbia Limited Partnership, the
owner of Lot .1,_ the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development ( "Lot 1 "),
according to the Amended Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 17 at Pages 99 ,
et seq. , (the "PUD ") and . according to the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision ( "PUD Agreement ")
recorded in Book 574 at Pages 792, et seq. , all reference being to the Pitkin County, Colorado
real property records, and all improvements constructed thereon, pursuant to Paragraph 13 of
Section H of the -PUD Agreement does hereby publish and declare that thirty (30) parking spaces
within the Southwest Corner of the Ballroom Level of the parking garage beneath the hotel
constructed on Lot 1 ( °Hotel':.) are herewith*
erewith ,designated and, prior to and as a condition of the
opening of the Hotel to the' - bl c. ;shall be. so! marked exclusively for the longterm automobile
storage of employees of; the Hotel „who, are. housed other than within accommodations located
within the Hotel orrconstructed'on,:Lot 5 of the:"PUD.
The foregoing shall,.be.ddemeda- covenant that runs with and burdens the title to
Lot 1 and the owner(s) at anytime thereof for the specific benefit of and shall be enforceable by
the City of Aspen by ,all, appropriate means unless and until released in writing by the City of
Aspen.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Covenant. Designating Parking Spaces for
Employee Use has been made and entered into as of the / f— day of Lp
1992.
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a District of Columbia Limited Partnership
By.
erdin d L. Belz III
Execu r've Director
S
r
•
•
#348864 09/23/92 09:46 Rec $35.00 BtK: 689 PG 320
Silvia Davis, Ritkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $ -00
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
IN RE THE MATTER OF SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S REQUEST FOR A
SECTION M AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT /SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN
SUBDIVISION
This matter is before the City Council upon the petition of
Savanah Limited Partnership ( "Savanah " -) -pursuant to Section M.of
the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit. Development/Sub-
division Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision ( "PUD
Agreement "), seeking a certain extension in the construction
scheduling for subdivision development. Pursuant to Savanah's
petition, a public hearing was convened in accordance with
Section M of the PUD Agreement and conducted pursuant to City
Council's hearing procedures. Savanah appeared, with legal
counsel, and produced testimony and other evidence in support of
its petition. Having heard all of the offered testimony and
argument and having reviewed the documentary evidence as submit-
ted and made part of the record herein, the City Council finds as
follows:
1. On May 21, 1992, Savanah submitted a written petition
to the City pursuant to Section M of the PUD Agreement seeking an
extension in the present construction schedule deadline governing
construction and development of Lot 6, the proposed Ice Rink and
Park, within the Aspen Mountain Subdivision.
2. Section M of the PUD Agreement provides as follows in
its relevant part as pertinent hereto:
"... the Owner or its successors or assigns may, on its
own initiative, petition the City Council for a vari-
ance, an amendment to this Agreement, or an extension
of one or more of the time periods required for perfor-
mance under the Construction Schedules or otherwise.
The City Council may grant such variances, amendments
to this Agreement, or extensions of time as it may deem
appropriate under the circumstances. The parties ex-
pressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council
shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time peri-
ods for performance indicated in one or more of the
Construction Schedules if Owner demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the
delay(s) which necessitate such extension(s) are beyond
#348864 09/2. 2 « 9.,
46 Rec
Silvia Davis
Pitk:in Cnty
.7
$35.00 BK 699 Ps 321
Clerk, Doc $.00
the control of Owner, despite good faith efforts on its
part to perform in a timely manner."
3. Savanah seeks extensions in the current construction
schedule deadlines as follows:
Certificate of Occupancy
Ice Rink /Park .
4. Savanah has alleged that the
circumstances have caused delays in the
tion of the Ice Rink /Park component and
circumstances were beyond its control:
From To
10/1/92 10/1/93
following facts and /or
progress of the construc-
that such facts and
i. The David Koch Foundation of Wichita, Kansas, by
and through its authorized representatives, has offered to build
an ice rink on or near Wagner Park in the City of Aspen. A
Schematic Design Package for the proposed.Wagner Park Ice Rink
presented to City Council on May 11, 1992, describes an ice rink
capable of being used primarily for recreational skating with
potential for ice shows, limited hockey use and skating instruc-
tion.
ii. The City Council, Savanah and the David Koch
Foundation require additional time to evaluate the Wagner Park
Ice Rink proposals and designs in conjunction with the Ice
Rink /Park component of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Agree-
ment to determine which ice rink and location would be in the
best interest of the City of Aspen.
iii. Because of delays in the planning and review
process of Savanah's ice rink /park proposal precipitated by the
Koch Proposal, should City Council determine that it is in the
City's best interests to.proceed with the ice rink /park proposal
of Savanah on Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Savanah
will be unable to complete the. ice rink /park by October 1, 1992,
the date therefor established in the Amendment to the PUD Agree-
ment dated June 10, 1991. While delays in the planning process
occasioned by the intervention of the Koch Proposal may have only
been a few months, construction constraints, particularly the
pouring of a large slab of concrete for the ice rink, necessi -ate
a full one -year extension of the deadline.
5. City Council finds that Savanah has been able to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the testimony and evidence as
established in the record that the time required by City Coun -ii,
Savanah and the David Koch Foundation to evaluate the best s--',--e
6
#348864 09/23/92 09 :46 Rec $35.00 Eck' 699 PG 322
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00
I
proposal for an ice rink has caused unavoidable delays in the
progress of construction for Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivi-
sion that are beyond the control of Savanah despite its good
faith efforts to perform.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING, City
Council does hereby grant to Savanah Limited Partnership the
following extension to the construction schedule deadlines for
the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, which extension shall be incorpo-
rated into a written amendment to the PUD Agreement pursuant to
Sections M and 0(6), subject to those terms and conditions as set
forth below:
EXTENSION
From To
1. Certificate of Occupancy
Ice Rink /Park 10/1/92 10/1/93
CONDITIONS
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
Hotel Phase I, and as'a condition precedent thereto, Savanah
shall deposit $700,000.00 in an escrow fund for the benefit and
in the name of the City of Aspen to secure Savanah's performance
in regard to the following:
(1) The establishment of a permanent fund to defray
operation and maintenance costs for the Wagner
Park Ice Rink in the event the City should deter-
mine to authorize such ice rink; or
(2) Construction by Savanah of an ice rink /park as
approved by the Aspen City Council and as required
by the PUD Agreement on Lot 6 of the Aspen Moun-
tain Subdivision. In such event, Savanah may be
permitted to periodically draw down or reduce the
escrow amount upon the authorization of the Direc-
tor of Public Works and Planning Director corre-
sponding with the progress toward the successful
completion of the ice rink /park.
All documents establishing the escrow and the escrow
instructions.shall be in a form satisfactory to the City F---or-
ney.
2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy =_r the
Hotel Phase I, and as a.condition precedent thereto, Savant
shall clean and improve Lot 6 by removing all construe. ion
3
0
#348864 09/23/92 09:46 Rec $35.00 B
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc
669-PG 323
$.00
materials, equipment, debris and fencing therefrom, regrade the
lot as necessary to allow pedestrian traffic, and aesthetically
improve the site as reasonably required by the Public Works
Director and Planning Director.
3. In the event that City Council grants development
approval to the David Koch Foundation.for development of the
Wagner Park Ice Rink, Savanah shall thereafter seek all requisite
amendments to the PUD Agreement, final PUD development plan, and
other applicable development approvals within a reasonable time
period in order to construct and maintain a municipal park on Lot
6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision.
4. The effectiveness-of the extension'as granted herein
shall be contingent upon Savanah's compliance, as determined.by
the City staff, with all of those conditions as set forth above.
In the event that any "condition as set forth above is not sub-
stantially complied with, then the extension granted herein shall
automatically be rendered invalid and such failure(s) to comply
shall constitute non - compliance with the First Amended and
Restated PUD /Subdivision Agreement. Savanah,shall thereafter be
entitled to a hearing before City Council to determine sanctions
or penalties for its non - compliance, which may include the
revocation or termination of any or all approvals contained in
the PUD Agreement.
Done this day of 1992.
ATTEST:
jc62.3
a
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
By: s, (3
John S .Bennett, Mayor
M
. t9l
TBANSMITTAL
r
Savanah Limited Partnmbip 303-925-4272'A
600 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 200 Fe # 303 - 9254387
Aspen, Colorado 81611 %
DATE: 16 September 1992 C
TO: Jed Caswall
FROM: Ferd Belz
RE: Section M Amendment to The First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development /Subdivision Agreement for The Aspen Mountain Subdivision
CC: Perry Harvey
VIA: Hand- Delivered '
Please Find Enclosed:
One (1) signed copy of the Section M Amendment to The First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development /Subdivision Agreement for The Aspen Mountain Subdivision.
Please inform uAmtm"ately if you do not receive this transmission in Cull.
r'
i
1
` • LAW OFFI(S OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & AOCIATES •�
P.O. Box 4r9 • Boulder, Colorado 803064579 • Telephone (303) 447 -1974
Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
08/31/92
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Ms. Amy Margerum
City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Mr. Robert Gish
Public Works Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Mr. Larry Ballenger
Water Department Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
ASPEN
SUMMARY OF CURRENT BILLING
ASPEN -01
General Legal (PO 100537)
ASPEN -02
Misc Annex /Wtr Ext /Agree (PO 100537)
SEP 1 & 1992
CITY ATg 011EME 'd
OFFICE
FEES COSTS CREDITS
1,212.50 50.62 0.00
0.00 7.21 0.00
TOTAL
1,263.12
7.21
• LAW OFFI9 OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & A&CIATES •
P.O. Box 479 • Boulder, Colorado (�i 7�7� elephone (303) 447 -1974 AGE 2
Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, ew'York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
O SHUNY OF�C[�RRENT BILLG' California
FEES COSTS CREDITS TOTAL
ASPEN -39 0.00 3.31 0.00 3.31
CCDA (PO 101174)
ASPEN.01 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00
AP -01 General Legal (PO 100537)
TOTALS 1,237.50 61.14 0.00 1,298.64
PREVIOUS BALANCE 6,771.86
PYMTS /ADJUSTMENTS — 6,771.86
CURRENT BILLING 1,298.64
NEW BALANCE 1,298.64
• LAW OFFI(S OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & A&CIATES •
P.O. Box 9 • Boulder, Colorado 803064579 • Telephone (303) 447 -1974
Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
08/31/92
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
OUR FILE: ASPEN -01 General Legal (PO 100537)
Professional Services Rendered:
08/03/92
MMM
Phonecon w /B. Noone on final Stipulation
0.25
25.00
[BWCD]
08/04/92
RAB
Letter to Jed Caswall
0.25
25.00
08/04/92
MMM
Review and revise letter to J.C. on
0.25
25.00
augmentation issue
08/10/92
RAB
Letter to Jed
0.25
25.00
08/10/92
MMM
Review Caswall letter; Review MCDC file;
1.00
100.00
Phonecon w /K. Holleyman on case status
08/13/92
RAB
Review letter from Jed; Conference w /MMM
0.25
25.00
08/14/92
RAB
Review Rio Grande Stipulation
0.25
25.00
08/14/92
MMM
Review denial of well application
0.25
25.00
08/17/92
RAB
Rio Grande Stipulation
1.00
100.00
08/18/92
JDM
Letter to JC re MCDC cases
0.25
43.75
08/19/92
JDM
Review draft letter to JC
0.25
43.75
08/19/92
MMM
Review and revise MCDC letter
0.25
25.00
08/21/92
MMM
Review letter and opinion
0.25
25.00
08/24/92
MMM
Phonecon w /AG's office on settlement
0.25
25.00
08/24/92
MMM
Update notes for use in negotiations
3.00
300.00
w /SEO, AG's office, ACES and Aspen Ski
Company to resolve all parties issues
08/25/92
MMM
Review Aspen Water Rights file for
1.50
150.00
identity of holder of Well Permit
7753 -F; Phonecon w /SEO and L. Ballenger
on ownership; Revise memorandum; Prepare
possible stipulations to cover other
parties concerns in above
• LAW OFFIM OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & A&CIAM •
08/31/92 P.O. Box 'W9 • Boulder, Colorado 80306 -4579 • Telephone (303) 447 -1974
PAGE 2 Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
FILE ASPEN -01
RAB
Letter to Jed
0.25
General
Legal (PO 100537)
RAB
Letter to Jed re billing
08/26/92 MMM
Phonecon w /SEO for well permit
1.00
100.00
Review letters and stipulations
information; Phonecon w /L. Ballenger;
NC
08/17/92
JSC
Calls to existing laundries in Aspen;
0.75
NC
08/17/92
Phonecon w /Records Department; Well
Continue review of Rio Grande Drain
0.50
NC
Permit owner identified
Stipulation
08/26/92 MMM
Phonecon w /well owner, referred to K.
0.25
25.00
Stipulation; Conference w /MMM
Patrick
NC
08/18/92
08/26/92 MMM
Obtain blank well waiver form
0.25
25.00
08/27/92 RAB
Phonecon w /Cindy Covell; Conferene w /MMM
0.25
25.00
08/28/92 MMM
Read K. Patrick's Objection to
0.25
25.00
0.25
Stipulation
08/19/92
MMM
08/28/92 MMM
Letter to Jed Caswall
0.25
25.00
MMM
TOTAL HOURS
11.75
NC
TOTAL FEES
revision
1,212.50
Expenses:
MMM
Final revisions to MCDC letter
08/31/92
Photocopy Expenses
08/27/92
14.40
08/31/92
Postage Expenses
NC
6.37
08/31/92
Telephone Expenses
28.34
08/31/92
Fascimile Transmission Expense
application
1.51
TOTAL COSTS
50.62
Non - Chargeable Services:
08/03/92
RAB
Letter to Jed
0.25
NC
08/17/92
RAB
Letter to Jed re billing
0.50
NC
08/17/92
JDM
Review letters and stipulations
0.25
NC
08/17/92
JSC
Review Rio Grande Drain Stipulation
0.75
NC
08/17/92
JSC
Continue review of Rio Grande Drain
0.50
NC
Stipulation
08/18/92
RAB
Stipulation; Conference w /MMM
0.25
NC
08/18/92
MMM
Review options w /RAB on proceeding
0.25
NC
08/18/92
MMM
Search for budget letter and MCDC letter
0.25
NC
08/19/92
RAB
Review JDM's letter
0.25
NC
08/19/92
MMM
Review letter to Jed Caswall on MCDC
0.25
NC
08/24/92
MMM
Review letter to Caswall for accuracy of
0.25
NC
revision
08/25/92
MMM
Final revisions to MCDC letter
0.25
NC
08/27/92
MMM
Phonecon w /Pitkin County Attorney office
0.25
NC
on possible opposition to diligence
application
• LAW OFFI(• OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & A&CIATES •
08/31/92 P.O. Box 4579 • Boulder, Colorado 80306-4579 • Telephone (303) 447 -1974
PAGE 3 Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
FILE ASPEN -01 Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
General Legal (PO 100537)
08/28/92 RAB Phonecon w /Cindy Covell 0.25 NC
08/28/92 JDM Review document re SO in TWLKS case 0.25 NC
TOTAL NO- CHARGE 4.75 0.00
SUMMARY OF FEES HOURS
R A Brammer 2.25
J D MUSICK 0.50
M M MC CANN 9.00
TOTAL 11.75
TO'
RATE AMOUNT
100.00 225.00
175.00 87.50
100.00 900.00
1,212.50
rAL DUE THIS BILL: 1,263.12
LAST BILL: 07/31/92 PREVIOUS BALANCE 2,866.61
08/28/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU - 1,230.49
08/10/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU - 1,636.12
TOTAL DUE THIS BILL: 1,263.12
NEW BALANCE 1,263.12
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
• LAW OFFI OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & A&CIATES •
P.O. Box 79 • Boulder, Colorado 80306 -4579 • Telephone (303) 447 -1974
Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
08/31/92
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
OUR FILE: ASPEN -02 Misc Annex /Wtr Ext /Agree (PO 100537)
Expenses:
08/31/92 Photocopy Expenses 6.00
08/31/92 Postage Expenses 1.21
TOTAL COSTS
7.21
TOTAL DUE THIS BILL: 7.21
LAST BILL: 07/31/92 PREVIOUS BALANCE 7.78
08/10/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU -7.78
TOTAL DUE THIS BILL: 7.21
NEW BALANCE 7.21
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
• LAW OFFI OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & A&CIATES •
P.O. Box 9 • Boulder, Colorado 803064579 • Telephone (303) 447 -1974
Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
08/31/92
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
OUR FILE: ASPEN -17 Aspen Wtr Mgt Pln /Cap Wtr Proj(PO100930)
LAST BILL: 07/31/92 PREVIOUS BALANCE 325.00
08/10/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU - 325.00
NEW BALANCE 0.00
• LAW OFFI& OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & APCIATES •
P.O. Box • Boulder, Colorado 80306 -4579 • Telephone (303) 7 -1974
Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
08/31/92
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
OUR FILE: ASPEN -39 CCDA (PO 101174)
Expenses:
08/31/92 Photocopy Expenses 0.40
08/31/92 Postage Expenses 0.29
08/31/92 Fascimile Transmission Expense 2.62
TOTAL COSTS 3.31
Non - Chargeable Services:
08/03/92
RAB
Phonecon w /Dean Gordon; Phonecon w /Carol
0.75
NC
Hood; Phonecon w /Bill Tofany
08/04/92
RAB
Phonecon w /Carol Hood and Bill Toufany;
1.00
NC
Conference w /MMM
08/10/92
RAB
Review letter from Jed and Cindy
0.50
NC
08/10/92
MMM
Review case status and determine
0.50
NC
materials to be sent to water referee
08/12/92
RAB
Phonecon w /Cindy Covell
0.25
NC
08/12/92
RAB
Conference w /MMM
0.25
NC
08/12/92
MMM
Update from RAB on case settlement
0.25
NC
08/17/92
RAB
Letter to Jed; Review Cindy's letter
0.25
NC
08/17/92
JDM
Review letter to Jed
0.25
NC
08/18/92
MMM
Review Covell letter on settlement
0.25
NC
08/19/92
RAB
Phonecon w /Jed
0.25
NC
08/20/92
RAB
Letter to Ray Walker
0.50
NC
08/20/92
MMM
Revise letter seeking discovery
0.25
NC.
extension
• LAW OFFI(S OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & CIATES •
08/31/92 P.O. Box • Boulder, Colorado 803064579 • Telephone (303)'W-1974
PAGE 2 Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
FILE ASPEN -39 Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
CCDA (PO 101174)
08/21/92
MMM Phonecon w /Division 5 Water Referee
0.25
NC
08/22/92
MMM Letter to Walker confirming Friday
0.25
NC
extension grant
08/24/92
MMM Final revisions to letter requesting
0.25
NC
extension
08/28/92
MMM Review terms of time extension from
0.25
NC
Referee
TOTAL NO- CHARGE
6.25
0.00
TOTAL DUE THIS BILL:
3.31
LAST BILL: 07/31/92 PREVIOUS BALANCE
2,657.14
08/28/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU
-3.29
08/10/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU
- 2,653.85
TOTAL DUE THIS BILL:
3.31
NEW BALANCE
3.31
• LAW OFFI(S OF JOHN D. MUSICK, JR. & A CIATES •
P.O. Box a19 • Boulder, Colorado 803064579 0 Telephone (303) -1974
Admitted in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Wyoming and District of Columbia
Offices in Aspen and Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California
08/31/92
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
OUR FILE: ASPEN.01 AP -01 General Legal (PO 100537)
Professional Services Rendered:
08/11/92 RAB Review file for information for case 0.25 25.00
TOTAL HOURS 0.25
TOTAL FEES 25.00
Non - Chargeable Services:
08/25/92 RAB Review file 1.25 NC
08/27/92 MMM Prepare file for transmittal to Jed 0.75 NC
Caswall
08/28/92 MMM Copied MCDC file and sent to Caswall, 0.25 NC
TOTAL NO- CHARGE 2.25 0.00
SUMMARY OF FEES HOURS RATE AMOUNT
R A Brammer 0.25 100.00 25.00
TOTAL 0.25 25.00
TOTAL DUE THIS BILL: 25.00
LAST BILL: 07/31/92 PREVIOUS BALANCE 915.33
08/28/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED — THANK YOU — 650.41
08/10/92 PAYMENT RECEIVED — THANK YOU — 264.92
TOTAL DUE THIS BILL: 25.00
NEW BALANCE 25.00
vcx
s w
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD —LODGE PRELI !+II NARY PUD /SUBDIVISION
Index
1. John Doremus's April 8, 1984 letter to the Planning Office re:
Preliminary PUD Review procedures.
2. John Doremus's August 2, 1984 letter to the Planning Office re:
Need to Phase the Preliminary PUD application of the Lodge
portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge.
3. Paul Taddune's comments with respect to John Doremus's August 2,
1984 correspondence.
4. John Doremus's August 21, 1984 addendum to his August 2, 1984
letter re: Proposed Lodge Construction Scheduling.
5. Planning Office's August 27, 1984 memo to City Council re: Aspen
Mountain PUD Request Phase Preliminary PUD application.
6. City Council August 27, 1984 minutes reflecting Council approval
to stage Aspen Mountain PUD Preliminary Review.
7. City Council's September 24, 1984 minutes clarifying PUD procedural
requirements.
8. Paul Taddune's October 5, 1984 memorandum to City Council re:
Donation of Koch Lumber Property.
9. Planning Office's October 11, 1984 memo referring Aspen Mountain
Lodge Preliminary GMP /subdivision submission.
10. Planning Office's October 16, 1984 Certificate of Mailing and
Notice of Public Hearing re: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
11. Conceptual notes written by Sunny Vann.
12. Aspen Mountain PUD Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio Analysis of
April 10, 1984.
13. Thomas Dunlop's September 11, 1984 letter to Doug Graybeal re:
Carbon Monoxide Removal System.
14. Record of Proceedings of Planning and Zoning Commission's regular
meeting of October 2, 1984.
15. Heiko Kuhn's response to October 11, 1984 memorandum from Alan
Richman on Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision.
16. Jim Markalunas's October 22, 1984 memorandum to Alan Richman re:
Comments on Water improvements on Aspen Mountain Lodge.
17. Paul Taddune's November 5, 1984 memorandum to Planning Director
re: Cantrup Bankruptcy.
18. Thomas Dunlop's November 6, 1984 memorandum to Sunny Vann re:
Environmental Health's comments on Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary
GMP /Subdivision.
19. Jay Hammond's November 6, 1984 memorandum to Alan Richman re:
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and PUD.
20. Bill Drueding's November 6, 1984 memorandum to Alan Richman re:
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision.
21. Jim Wilson's November 7, 1984 memorandum to Alan Richman re:
Comments of Fire; Life and Safety nature on Aspen Mountain Lodge.
22. Sunny .Vann' s November 13, 1984 memorandum to Alan Richman re:
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary PUD /Subdivision application.
- -.1_ j
23. Jim Holland's November 15, 1984 memorandum to Planning Department
re: Review Comments on the Aspen Lodge.
24. P &Z Presentation notes on November 20, 1984 by Alan Richman.
25. Alan Richman's November 20, 1984 memorandum to Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission re: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary PUD /sub-
division, Condominiumization, Viewplane - Public Hearing.
26. Continental Inn Renovation Plan.
27. Jim Curtis's November 23, 1984 letter to Alan Richman re: Aspen
Mountain Lodge PUD Replacement of Displaced Employee Housing.
28. Alan Richman's November 27, 1984 memorandum to Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission re: Schedule for Review of Lodge Component of
Aspen Mountain PUD.
29. James Ripley's November 27, 1984 memorandum to Jim Holland re:
Review Comments - Aspen Lodge.
30. Joe Well's December 1, 1984 letter to Alan Richman re: Revised
submittal GMP submission for 700 South Galena /Hotel West Wing
residential units.
31. Comparative Table Original PUD and Phased Program.
32. Alan Richman's December 3, 1984 memorandum to Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission re: Phasing Comparison.
33. Application for Exception from Subdivision Regulations of December
11, 1984.
34. P &Z Presentation Notes of December 11, 1984 by Alan Richman.
35. Charles Brandt' s December 14, 1984 letter to Alan Richman re:
Aspen Mountain Lodge Condominiumization Section 20 -23 (A)(6)(C),
Aspen Municipal Code.
36. P &Z Meeting Notes of December 18, 1984 by Alan Richman.
37. Alan Richman's December 18, 1984 memorandum to Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission re: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary PUD -
Continued Public Hearing.
38. Alan Richman's January 8, 1985 memorandum to Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission re: Aspen Mountain Lodge - Completion of Review
of Issues.
39. Aspen Mountain Lodge Review of January 8, 1985 by Alan Richman.
40. Charles Brandt's January 14, 1985 letter to Alan Richman re:
Aspen Mountain Lodge - 1978 Aspen Inn_ Expansion Employee Housing
Requirement.
E
DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 2900
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVE R, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHO N E(303) 295 -8000
TELECOPIER(303)295 -8261
MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2165
TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669
CHARLES T. BRANDT
HAND DELIVERY
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3476
January 14, 1985
11
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
SUITE 1200
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (2'02)466-7340
TELECOPIER (202)466-7354
WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 500
2020 CAREY AVENUE
CHEYENNE,WYOM I NG 82001
TELEPHONE (307) 632 -2160
TELECOPIER (307) 778 -8175
S. E.DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
TELEPHONE (303) 741-1226
Alan Richman v
Acting Planning Director A? 1 5 i
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge - 1978 Aspen Inn
Expansion Employee Housing Requirement
Dear Alan:
D
This letter will put forth our client's position with respect
to the referenced. issue. The question is whether Commerce must
provide 24 employee units housing 35 employees as committed by Hans
Cantrup in his 1978 Aspen Inn Expansion GMP application for the 36
free - market lodge units; or, may Commerce provide housing for 100%
of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units, which amounts to
a commitment to house 13 employees. First, let us recap what has
happened to date.
On page 10 of the 1983 Lodge GMP Submission on The Aspen Moun-
tain Lodge, it is stated that "this Submission includes a request
for three forms of approval for the 480 unit lodge which relate to
the Lodge GMP regulation in the following manner;" Number 2 states:
"Approval of an amendment to the 1978
Lodge GMP Submission for an addition to the
Aspen Inn which received an allotment for 36
lodge units. It is our intention to demolish
the building which is presently under construc-
tion and rebuild the 36 units as a part of the
480 unit proposal."
In Resolution No. 84 -11 (series of 1984) granting a multi -year
Lodge GMP allocation to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and conceptual
PUD /Subdivision approval the following recital appears:
ap
• •
HOLLAND & HART
Alan Richman
January 14, 1985
Page 2
"Whereas, an additional forty -two (42)
(including the 36 units of the Aspen Inn Exten-
sion) lodge units are eligible for verification
pending the settlement of outstanding litiga-
tion between the Cantrup Estate and the City of
Aspen"
Pursuant to this portion of Council's resolution, a formal written
agreement settling three Aspen Inn lawsuits has been prepared by
the City Attorney acknowledging that the 36 units awarded to
Cantrup are fully valid and effective. Such agreement is contin-
gent, of course, upon approval of the bankruptcy court and final
Council approval of the Aspen Moutain Lodge PUD.
In Resolution 84 -27, City Council endorsed the revised
employee housing proposal of the Aspen Mountain PUD on condition
that the applicant submit "additional documentation with respect to
the replacement of existing employee housing as required by Sec-
tions 20 -22 and 20 -23.
Next, let's examine the Code requirements relating to
so- called "displaced" employee housing. Section 20 -22(c) requires
that the applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce
the supply of low and moderate income housing. The criteria
includes evidence that there will be minimal tenant displacement as
a result of the conversion. Section 20- 23(A)(2) requires a minimum
of "two (2) pillows of employee housing or that amount of employee
housing that has been provided for three (3) years previous to the
time of condominiumization, whichever is greater ". Clearly the
foregoing criteria does not apply since there has been no employee
housing provided or associated with the 36 unit Aspen Inn Exten-
sion. We believe the criteria which should apply is.36 employees
per unit which is the figure approved by the Housing Authority in
its review of the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP and PUD submission. It
equates to. housing 100% of the employees generated by the develop-
ment of the new units in the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Commerce pro-
poses to utilize this as the standard and to provide housing for 13
employers in connection with the redevelopment of the 36 unit Aspen
Inn Extension. This amounts to a commitment to house 100% of the
employees generated by the 36 lodge units.
As part of the Lodge Preliminary PUD and Subdivision Submis-
sion, and as one of the amendments proposed by the applicant to the
1978 GMP application as set forth in Jim Curtis' letter dated
November 23, 1984, Commerce has committed to house 100% of the
r 0 •
HOLLAND & HART
Alan Richman
January 14, 1985
Page 3
employees generated by the 36 lodge units of the 1978 Aspen Inn
expansion application, or 13 employees.
We trust that given the fact that Commerce is housing 100% of
the employees generated by the units resulting in no impacts to the
community, that Mr. Cantrup's employee units associated with the
Aspen Inn Expansion were never constructed, and that Commerce's
employee housing will be of superior quality than that historically
provided by Mr. Cantrup, you will recommend approval of this amend-
ment to the 1978 GMP application to the Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,,
CC/har T. Brandt
for HOLLAND & HART
CTB /fm
cc: Members, Planning Commission
Jim Curtis
Alan Novak
Ella S. Neyland
James M. Holbrook, Esq.
Robert Feldman, Esq.
Paul Taddune, Esq.
U
•
��M � • RCN \ ��W � � � .
f � � O W w2.f.. S�. ,� .. v, Q � � - -•_.7� Q> 0 � p w � =-- Q,,,c,� ti� U .-. �'j Y � � 9
npo
S
use. A
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - Completion of Review of Issues
DATE: January 8, 1985
Please bring to the January 8th meeting, your November 20 and December
18 Planning Office memos regarding the Aspen Mountain Lodge..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary PUD - Continued Public Hearing
DATE: December 18, 1984
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to provide you with a synopsis of the work
we have accomplished in our four meetings with respect to the Aspen
Mountain Lodge Preliminary PUD. I have organized this discussion in
terms of significant topical areas as an aid toward developing specific
conditions for your resolution granting Preliminary PUD approval.
ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
At our first meeting on November 20, we explored various aspects of the
project's architecture and site design. We first discussed Council's
desire to have architectural variation throughout the lodge buildings.
You concluded that since this is a PUD, it is reasonable to expect a
common, unified theme throughout the project, and that the separation of
the project into a number of buildings has created much of the desired
variation. Furthermore, by leaving the Continental in place for at
least five (5) years we insure that the project will have differing
styles for the time being.
The one condition which emerged from this discussion was our need to see
as much detail as possible on materials and colors to help us to under-
stand better the variation which the applicants have put into the build-
ings.
We also reviewed the FAR of the PUD on November 20 and .concluded that
approximately 25,000 square feet of external area around the perimeter
of the lodge will count against the approved FAR for the building,
thereby exceeding the limit imposed by Council. The covered areas
include the port cocheres, the colonnade between the chateaus and the
parking ramp to the underground garage. You generally felt that these
covered areas did not add to the bulk of the building (and in certain
cases actually reduced the perceived bulk), did serve an important
function in handling the guests to the hotel and should be retained in
the design.
One condition which resulted from this discussion was your desire to
prevent the applicants from ever pushing the inverted mass of the build-
ing out into the sidewalk in the area-of the commercial units. It was
felt that this limitation would effectively negate the fact that we
count this area in the FAR by insuring that it is never used as commer-
cial space.
The final issue discussed at our meeting on November 20 was the height
of the building. The applicants represented that the building had been
slightly redesigned to comply with Council's 42 and 55 foot limitations.
We should be sure to require that the applicants revise their preliminary
and final PUD drawings to illustrate this commitment.
TRANSPORTATION
Throughout our discussion we have touched upon a variety of transporta-
tion issues. Probably the issue which has created the greatest problem
is parking. The applicants propose to have the following off - street
parking spaces available as part of Phase 1A:
Below West Wing 211 (192 for lodge, 19 for
residential)
Surface East Wing 54
Below East Wing 28
TOTAL
293
The proposed 293 spaces are 60 less than were committed to at the con-
ceptual stage. However, in a meeting with John Doremus yesterday, I was
shown as revised plan which would add 72 more spaces as follows:
Subsurface East Wing 42
Surface East Wing 22
(Intrudes into about 65
feet of the Park)
Added surface, West Wing 1
Added surface, Port Cocheres 7
We�recorhmend ..-that'f.ollowing:_:your review of the revised design, you approve
this revised proposal for 365 spaces.
A second transportation question concerned the vacation of Dean Street.
The applicants indicated to you that they had changed their minds and
now wished to close the street to vehicular traffic other than circula-
tion to the port cocheres, thereby creating a nearly exclusive pedestrian
zone. Several issues resulted from this proposal, including the type of
signage and /or management techniques to enforce the street's closure. I
believe that you should require the applicants to clarify how they
intend to handle this situation. We also discussed the needs of service
vehicles, particularly to the Chart House, as they would be affected by
the closure. We agreed that a message should be transmitted to the
City's streets and engineering departments to provide better maintenance
of the roads west of the project through snow removal and parking limits
to insure adequate circulation in the remaining public streets.
A third transportation problem had to do with the movement of pedestrians
from the two lodge wings to Rubey Park. You were concerned that pedes-
trian traffic did not appear to be channeled to the street corners and
that the result would be a dangerous situation on Durant Street. The
applicants provided you with a drawing which revised the design of the
plaza in front of the Continental and obtained the desired channeliza-
tion. You should require the applicants to incorporate these changes
into their revised preliminary and final PUD drawings.
Other transportation issues which were discussed, but not resolved, in-
cluded the adequacy of the proposed Summit Street right -of -way (to be
resolved as part of the residential project review) and the adequacy of
the service vehicle access to the lodge. Finally, you concurred with
the applicants' clarification of the commitments in support of the vaca-
tion and easement requests, and their traffic circulation improvement
clarifications (both vehicular and pedestrian).
PHASING
Our discussion of the project's proposed phasing schedule covered both
policy and technical concerns. At your recent meeting on December 11,
you appeared to support the concept of phasing for the following reasons:
1. The first phase will upgrade the most seriously substandard
portion of the project, the West Wing.
2. The phasing program should result in lessened construction
impacts upon the community.
3. The phasing allows the applicants to evaluate the community's
ability to absorb 285 "top end" lodge units into the market.
If demand for these units does not exceed supply, then the
additional units should never have been built in the first
place, and the Continental can continue to serve its own share
of the market.
4. The downside result of phasing is an acceptable risk to the
community. We still achieve a new West Wing, a refurbished
Continential Inn, a new park on Durant Avenue and a generally
upgraded area.
Part of your confidence in the phasing program came from our review of
ten specific project amenities as originally represented and as revised
- 2 -
in the phased program. The only major problem identified in the phased
approach was parking, addressed above. Concerns were also raised about
the undergrounding of utilities, to be discussed in detail below.
One trade -off in the phasing program is that instead of getting an ice
rink and two chalets along Durant Street, we are instead provided with a
full block park in front of the Continential Inn. We see the park as a
very positive amenity in the area, particularly given the applicants'
representation that the mature trees which are to be removed elsewhere
on the lodge construction site will be relocated to the park. If the
park is ever removed, due to construction of the East Wing, the appli-
cants are prepared to again relocate the trees elsewhere on the site.
The new commitments by the applicants with respect to the landscape plan
should be made a condition of approval of Preliminary PUD.
Several phasing issues have not been resolved at this time. As of yet,
we have no final definition of the employee housing needs for the pro-
ject's first phase as compared to the whole project. This issue is
intended to be resolved during the residential project review. We also
have no firm plans for the upgrade of the Continental. The applicants
must provide drawings demonstrating that no more than 162 units will
remain in the Continental after it is refurbished so that the 447 unit
allocation is not violated. The drawings should demonstrate the future
use of the rooms which are being abandoned, and the plans for the ex-
terior of the building.
The applicant has asked you to consider allowing the Continental to drop
to 150 units by having an additional 12 units relocated tot:the West
Wing. We see no basic problem with this request, if the proper drawings
are submitted as part of final plat, demonstrating that the footprint of
the West Wing has not grown as a result of this request.
We spent considerable time discussing the construction schedule for
Phase lA of the project. The applicants presented a thorough, well con-
ceived schedule which is very tight if the applicants objectives are to
be achieved in a timely fashion. One issue which still must be resolved
is the provision of a staging area for construction materials and
support services. You also wanted the applicant to provide us with a
bond to insure that once the streets in the area are torn up, you could
guarantee their reconstruction as needed. It was also suggested that we
require the structural steel to be delivered prior to the winter season
and that locations for dumping excess excavation /demolition materials be
identified by the applicants. As a catch -all, we should require the
applicants to continue to work with the City Engineer regarding the
schedule and City coordination of services in the area.
One last phasing question relates to Council's agreement to review the
residential and lodge submission in stages. Your action on the prelimi-
nary.PUD should recognize that the approval of the lodge stage does not
become effective until the preliminary review of the entire PUD has been
approved.
TTTTT.TTTFS
Our discussion of utilities demonstrated that the applicants continue to
commit to improving the overall quality of service to their neighbor-
hood. Water and sewer commitments remain unchanged. The applicants
have clarified their fire protection program and these new commitments
should be made part of our resolution. A drainage solution is not now
available, and is dependent upon the applicants completion of a study of
flows from Aspen Mountain and the development of an adequate design for
both the residential and lodge components of the PUD. We should re-
cognize the need to-finalize the drainage solution for the lodge within
the residential component of the PUD.
A final utility question is the extent to which the utilities in the
area will be placed underground in the first phase of the project. The
applicant represented that all proposed undergrounding will take place,
with the possible exception of the East block of Dean Street. The
applicants should be required to firmly commit to an undergrounding plan
in conjunction with submission of a final plat to City Council.
- 3 -
0 •
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
Our review agencies have identified a variety of technical questions
which should be addressed as conditions of your approval. Of particular
importance are the comments by Jay Hammond, Tom Dunlop, Jim Holland and
Jim Wilson.
Your review of the Wheeler Viewplane issue resulted in no particular
conditions of approval. However, your ongoing review of the hotel and
residential condominiumization will result.in some conditions being
imposed. You.were concerned about the rental management of the condo -
miniumized hotel units being accomplished by no more than two entities,
one for each wing of the PUD. You also raised the question of whether;
the amenities of the project would be freely available to its guests,
possibly by keeping their ownership in the association. For your informa-
tion, on page 16 of the By- laws - -the applicants commit to charging no
fees for the use of the swimming pools, spas, health center and ice rink.
I believe that this commitment should satisfy your concerns relative to
this issue. Finally, your completion of the residential condominiumiza-
tion review tonight will probably add other conditions to your action.
Although we have not yet addressed the GMP amendment request for 700 S.
Galena, our review of the lodge itself makes it clear that the project
will have to be scored once again to reflect its new design and phasing
program. The applicant should be required to submit such an amendment
prior to receipt of a building permit (presumably after an operator has
been chosen so the amendment can.reflect final program details).
CONCLUSION
We have identified a large number of issues which need to be addressed
in your resolution regarding the lodge preliminary PUD. Following your
completion of the technical review tonight, I should have adequate gui-
dance to develop a draft resolution. The actual work will be quite
tedious and time - consuming. Given the fact that we are moving into the
holiday season and we have not scheduled any additional meetings on this
project, I need your direction as to when you want to meet to review the
draft. Hopefully, that added meeting will allow you to conclude your
work on the lodge Preliminary PUD.
- 4 -
1
� �Q /`��1 � ��C�� JA--
0 l
n ( r r
\—C.\ , A-C-LeSS
IJ.F ,
0�
�.S � SQ -�s� -- • X10 9 5. 6�..,� 1-�v o � � �\ � S
IiI _ 1
Cc, /tQtO_ �•,�,,wan�Q oP�.
"` p` 1 k
(( ( Co K •�
pr\�.O wy Usk --Lo 000
O
o ^ k
nn Fea s
- O
��� '-' S \n��&-�2_ B �` Cis -� o� (� ,.J�- � •�+¢_7�'� -
ww.,.tn.w
(( ( Co K •�
pr\�.O wy Usk --Lo 000
O
o ^ k
nn Fea s
- O
HAND DELIVERED
Alan Richman
Acting Planning Director
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge Condominium
p �6ao
DEC, I
niz "at ion -
Section 20- 23(A)(6)(c), Aspen Municipal Code
Dear Alan:
This letter will put forth our client's position with respect
to the requirement under the referenced section that Commerce Sav-
ings execute a promissory note payable to the City secured by a
trust deed encumbering the lodge property. Such a note would be
approximately $50,000,000.
The promissory note and trust deed requirement, in the words
of the referenced section, is "to assure that the physical
upgrading of the lodge facility required by this section is
accomplished..." Phase 1 of the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not an
"upgrade" of an existing facility but an entirely new facility.
From a reading of Section 20 -23, it becomes clear that the ordi-
nance speaks to existing lodges which are being condominiumized and
in the process certain improvements and amenities are being pro-
vided. This is not the case with the Aspen Mountain Lodge. The
existing facilities are being removed and a new facility is being
constructed.
Secondly, the right to subordinate the City's deed of trust
securing the promissory note does not work for this project. It
will be necessary, unless the public offering route is pursued suc-
cessfully, for the developer to borrow the funds needed to build
the hotel. Such funds will be secured.by a deed of trust which
will be required by the lender to be in a first lien position
against the phase one land. Thus, if the subordination provisions
HOLLAND & HART
DENVER OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
SUITE 2900
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 1200
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
DENVER, C OLORADO 80202
600 EAST MAIN STREET
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (303) 295 -8000
TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340
TELEC OPIER (303) 295-8261
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELECOPIER (202) 466 -7354
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
MONTANA OFFICE
WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 1400
SUITE 500
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
2020 CAREY AVENUE
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONE(406) 252 -2166
TELEPHONE (307) 632 -2160
TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669
TELECOPIER (307) 778 -8175
CHARLES T. BRANDT
December 14, 1984
S. E.DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
TELEPHONE (303) 741 -1226
HAND DELIVERED
Alan Richman
Acting Planning Director
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge Condominium
p �6ao
DEC, I
niz "at ion -
Section 20- 23(A)(6)(c), Aspen Municipal Code
Dear Alan:
This letter will put forth our client's position with respect
to the requirement under the referenced section that Commerce Sav-
ings execute a promissory note payable to the City secured by a
trust deed encumbering the lodge property. Such a note would be
approximately $50,000,000.
The promissory note and trust deed requirement, in the words
of the referenced section, is "to assure that the physical
upgrading of the lodge facility required by this section is
accomplished..." Phase 1 of the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not an
"upgrade" of an existing facility but an entirely new facility.
From a reading of Section 20 -23, it becomes clear that the ordi-
nance speaks to existing lodges which are being condominiumized and
in the process certain improvements and amenities are being pro-
vided. This is not the case with the Aspen Mountain Lodge. The
existing facilities are being removed and a new facility is being
constructed.
Secondly, the right to subordinate the City's deed of trust
securing the promissory note does not work for this project. It
will be necessary, unless the public offering route is pursued suc-
cessfully, for the developer to borrow the funds needed to build
the hotel. Such funds will be secured.by a deed of trust which
will be required by the lender to be in a first lien position
against the phase one land. Thus, if the subordination provisions
or
0
Alan Richman
December 14, 1984
Page 2
HOLLAND & HART
of this Section are applied, Commerce would have $100,000,000 in
notes against the property, $50,000,000 to its construction lender
and $50,000,000 to the City. Yet this violates the requirement in
Section 20- 23(A)(6)(c) which states that the combined obligations
may not "exceed the fair market value of the lodge property and its
improvements at the time the application is approved ". The value
of the lodge property is considerably less than $100,000,000.
Clearly this is an unworkable provision under the circumstances.
You and I thought the "Hotel Lenado alternative" offered a
solution. The problem with agreeing that the City withhold final
condominium approval until the hotel is completed, as in the Hotel
Lenado case, is that such a provision may preclude an effective
registered offering if this route is pursued by Commerce.
If we weren't condominiumizing the new hotel, this section
would not apply. Nor would it apply if Commerce was in fact
upgrading the existing lodges and not seeking condominium approval
(as in the case with the Hotel Jerome). Thus, it is difficult to
see the logic of its application of this case and given the
unworkability of the subordination provision, we request that this
provision be determined by the planning office to be inapplicable.
Thank you.
CTB /fm
cc: John Doremus
Alan Novak
Ella Neyland
James M. Holbrook, Esq.
Robert Feldman
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Very truly yours,
Charles T. Brandt
for HOLLAND & HART
r
W o � �.�,�C.� 'tom S.� -e.._ �-a � �A �. � •� \ � � ,,,7� -� � a ..� p F `,p ,�..i � .¢-7C h-t
L - � \\,�..p,.� �Q O k. f� 'k- �-Q�t �l h \ � ♦ ti C.K \'A � �-O -� 'cv �. � c-v. � • "� \ y
ITO. II �w� t \A� \Oh �F O VfJ� NI.J \Q—j
C� . -100
f
T
� - _O -- 'W � l✓ 0 n.K. ` �y,,,J c� -� S, `C ^� -...7` r`�^ , �"c'�L -� l l � � "�,n-0 9 �y,�l i J 't-� `� � i-ty
"7 �,'C�.•.A\ �'��F \G (�.Q��p! -.7� -1 �� i. F�^'.'^2.i.. SP�ASOti l - --
Q ,A�- --�
—19 -
1 —\ - - --
F7
C�
—6 WV- oi- Ca ( "
� _ -r►As Iwo —tom
ot
I,..o•c�l otio� --�
K A-
kka n �Ac
1 �
\4s6 – tt \orb
I 1t t
L
ICLO ` ,nor \Yw� \L ...f t
�'j- G� Ot -- V4���a��
`c�(X .O r-
\✓ �-- 1'�i4,� p Cam`` �,� �Yi \ w.+ O�-� �1%�- �,J �/�OO.A —. � \j o J w.7'R^ -Sj.o� Ik� ����I" -�C �„�p�
p l (gyp., A h – ree�`'�_
I
' 1 w �")� F� L �n. nvf, S ? \ o � �) '`n � A � (�..✓�
�� V c,� p ti (VL �.O �+t �j �...0 � 4° 0"C'o "�I
—6 WV- oi- Ca ( "
� _ -r►As Iwo —tom
ot
I,..o•c�l otio� --�
K A-
kka n �Ac
1 �
' 1 w �")� F� L �n. nvf, S ? \ o � �) '`n � A � (�..✓�
�� V c,� p ti (VL �.O �+t �j �...0 � 4° 0"C'o "�I
�ouo�s�
—6 WV- oi- Ca ( "
� _ -r►As Iwo —tom
ot
I,..o•c�l otio� --�
K A-
kka n �Ac
1 �
. G
APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION
FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of Commerce Savings Associ-
ation of Angleton, Texas (hereinafter jointly referred to as
"Applicant ") under Section 20 -19(a) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, for an exception from the six month
minimum lease restriction contained in Section 20 -22(b) with
respect to the condominiumization of the 14 residential units
confirmed in Aspen Mountain; Lodge (see page 112, V.A. Lodge Con-
dominium Request, Preliminary PUD and Subdivision, Phase One).
REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION
Section 20 -19(a) grants authority to the Planning Commission
to grant exceptions from the strict application of the standards,
requirements and other provisions of Chapter 20 when in the judg-
ment of the Planning Commission, undue hardship may result from
strict compliance.
The Applicant requests that the Planning Commission except
the condominiumization of the 14 residential units to be
contained in the Aspen Mountain Lodge, from the following subdi-
vision requirements:
§20 -22(b) that all condominiumized units shall be
restricted to six (6) month minimum lease with no more than
two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
BASIS FOR EXCEPTION
The Applicant submits the following in support of this
application:
The stated intention of the Lodge -Two (L -2) Zone Dis-
trict in which the Aspen Mountain Lodge is situated is to encour-
age the construction of tourist - oriented multi - family units and
other types of dwellings. Thus, the requirement contained in ,
Section 20 -22(b) conflicts with the intention of the L -2 zone
district and the permitted uses therein. Therefore, it is neces-
sary to grant an exception from §20 -22(b) and thereby recognize
_r 6 qI
that the intention and permitted uses within L -2 include
unrestricted tourist - oriented condominiumized residential units
within a lodge complex as the controlling code provision.
Addressing the requirements of X20- 19(a), the Applicant sub-
mits the following:
(1) That the conflict noted above is the special cir-
cumstances affecting the subject property such that the
strict application of the provisions of X20 -22(b) would
deprive the Applicant of the reasonable use of its
property;
(2) That the requested exception is necessary for the
presentation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the Applicant enjoyed by others. The one pre-
cedent of which the Applicant is aware is the Blitz II
subdivision exception in which the Planning Commission
and Council granted through subdivision exception the
condominiumization of a duplex on Lot 15, Anthony Acres
Subdivision, without imposition of the restiction
contained in §20- 22(b). The zoning of this property
was L -2.
(3) The granting of the exception will not be detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area for it will resolve a conflict
within the code and recognize a use widely existing in
the area. / L
Dated this !/ of December, 1984.
HOLLAND & HART
By
Ch rles T. Brandt
-2-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Phasing Comparison
DATE: December 3, 1984
Attached for your review is the table you requested comparing in 10
specific areas, the original PUD representations to the phased program
representations for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. We should plan on-going
through these items on Tuesday to continue to meet our review schedule
for this project.
ITEM------------ - - - - --
1. Water, Sanitary
Sewer and Storm Sewer
.2. Other Utilities
3. CCLC District
COMPARATIVE TABLE
ORIGINAL PUB AND PHASED PROGRAM
ORIGINAL _ REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION UNDER PHASING__________________
Infrastructural upgrades both for the
project and neighborhood.
Cable, telephone and electric to be
underground - Monarch, dill, Dean, Spur
onto 700 S. Galena.
Would pay pro -rata share of district
costs..,
All improvements up front.
Monarch and Mill and West block of Dean will be done,
east block of Dear, under study. Spur also to be
accomplished.
No change, but might not put some street trees around
Continental, but excess landscaping is proposed on unbuil
portions of east wing on a temporary basis.
4. Trails Ski in trail through site and around Trail between Alpenblick and Continental can be done
perimeter of both wings, Dean Street although may be unattractive. Dean Street Trail \and
Trail, Top of Mill Trail. and rest of ski in trail will be done. Top of Mill trail
dependent on connections to other easements and construc-
tion of residential units.
5. Tourist Hotel Amenities a. Meetings Areas. 14,000 square feet in West Wing; 7,000 square feet in
East wing.
b. Lobby Areas. Continental lobby is smaller than that originally pro -
posed for East wing.
c. Dining -Bar. Most of restaurants are in West wing, space proposed
in West wing is over and above original commitment, plus
space in Paddy Bugattis will remain.
d. Health- Recreation. All of this area (4,300 s.f.) is in the West wing, pool
in Continental plus pool in West wing meets commitment
to two pools, but the ice skating rink is withheld until
second phase. Sundeck.s and picnic amphitheatre also
still committed to.
6. Total Design Concept. Complete upgrade of the entire area,
removal of subgrade structures, single
construction period.
7. Site Work.. Mature vegetation to be retained and
augmented by new landscaping; utilities
underground; lodge district implemented
trails and street improvements; open
space exceeds minimum requirements,
including open area on Durant Street.
Continental to remain but all surrounding building=
to be removed. Continental inside is to be re-
furbished, and a program is being developed for minimal
to moderate external upgrade. Project design for West
wing clearly is a major improvement over initial GMP
submission but compatibility between the two wings is
questionable. There will be two construction periods,
not ore.
Vegetation is retained to a greater degree due to fewer
construction impacts; open space on Durant Street is
increased to an entire block of park; all other commit-
ments are maintained.
ITEM
----------------------
8. Energy Conservation
9. Parking
10. Circulation
0 to
ORIGINAL REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION UNDER PHASING
--------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------
Building to exceed code, solar orienta- No changes to Continental, except new furnace; all
tion, support functions, subgrade, com- other commitments to be met.
puter controlled HVAC system.
353 spaces for 447 rooms 192 subgrade spaces for the West wing, 19 subgrade
(.79 /unit) all subgrade. for the residential units in the hotel, 54 surface spaces
on Continental site and 28 spaces in the Continental
garage (283 spaces = 80% of 353, .b spaces per unit
"�. overall). The proposal exceeds the needs of the !Jest
wing, and provides about 40 spaces more for the Con-
tinental than is now the case.
Variety of pedestrian improvements, reduc- All circulation commitments are unchanged.
tion of curb cuts, contribution to Rubey
Park study, auto disincentives.
' f
•_S
1]
LI
Doremus & Wells, an association
608 east hyman avenue - aspen, colorado 81611
(303)925-6866
December 1, 1984
Mr. Alan Richman
Director, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
Our letter, which is submitted with a revised residential GMP
submission for 700 South Galena /Hotel West Wing residential
units, is to formally request that the City review the applica-
tion under the procedures of Section 24 -11.7 of the City Code, as
an amendment to a previously approved GMP submission.
We believe our new submission is much improved in comparison to
the project which received conceptual PUD and Subdivision
approval on September 15, 1984 under Resolution 23/84. We expe'
that the rescoring of the new project will reflect that. I/
We might remind you that changes to the original submittal
were required in order to obtain conceptual PUD and Subdiv
approval (but subsequent to a GMP allocation) have prompte
applicants to undertake a major redesign of the project,
to bring back a project that is responsive to the concer
at the conceptual level.- ,
Section 24 -11.7 of the Code describes the procedure
ed in the event that after submission of a GMP appl,
substantial changes are made in the original propo/
are deemed "substantial" if they would potential]/
points originally awarded during the GMP scoring
represent a change from the approved architec Vr�
or if there is a change in the employee housy
type and level of physical services and faci7
Changes are to be reconsidered at a publi
Planning and Zoning Commission where the
proposal to determine whether the projec
threshold in all categories and whether/
relative to other projects originally/
0
Mr. Alan Richman
Decemb4r 1, 1984
Page Two
•
Following rescoring, the P &Z makes a recommendation to the City
Council as to the appropriateness of the amendments to the
original proposal.
Obviously, a decision by the City to require that we re- compete
for a �ew allotment places the residential project at risk; such
a decision would in turn have implications for the success of the
Aspen Mountain PUD as a whole.
We believe that the provisions of 24 -11.7 grants the City
adequate protection to approve only those amended applications
which fare deemed to be an improvement.over the original
submission.
Thank ;you for your consideration.
JW /b
• i
Berridge Associates, Inc.
Planning • Landscape Arch ite ;lure
Memorandum
To: Jim Holland, Director of Parks
rom: James Ripley
Date: November 27, 1984
Re: Review Comments —Aspen Lodge
We have reviewed your comments regarding the landscape
portion of the proposed.Aspen Lodge development. We
concur that it would be beneficial to save the eight
spruce trees previously designated for removal., as
four of the spruce are located on the site of the
temporary park. We feel that they should remain in
place, and recommend that the other four be relocated
to the temporary park site also.
At the time of development on the park site, in approxi-
mately five years, the spruce will be relocated to
either the rear of the East Lodge Courtyard at Galena
Street or the rear of the West Lodge Courtyard. If
during the course of development we are unable to use
the trees or a portion of, they will be offered to
the City for their usage. .
Regarding the other matters, we agree that all Green
Ash street trees should be a minimum of 31" to 4"
caliper, B &B, and that the 30" Cottonwood on the
corner of Durant and Galena streets should be removed
because of.poor health and a conflict with design
intent. Also all Populus Augustifolia will be
specified as "cottonless" 'and the mislabeled items
will be corrected on the drawings per your recommendations.
Thank you very much.
CC: John Doremus
245 Vallejo St. San Francisco, California 941 1 1 • (4 15 ' ) 433 -2.357
P. O. lox 6364 Denver, Colorado 80206 • (303) 863 -1059
1000 So. Frontage Rd. West, Suite 100 - Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476 -0851
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Schedule for Review of Lodge Component of Aspen Mountain PUD
DATE: November 27, 1984
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following
is
my
proposal for your scheduled review of the Lodge
component
of
the
Aspen
Mountain PUD:
November
20
(R) *
Overview, changes since conceptual, conditions
1 through 3
November
27
(S) *
Conditions 4 through 19
Dece�ber
4
(R)
Comparison of full and phased project commit-
ments
December
11
(S)
Phasing continued, GMP amendment, viewplane,
condomi ni umiz ation
Dec
ber
18
(R)
Conditions for Resolution
*Note: R Defers
to regular
meeting date, S to - special meeting date.
Please let
me
know if
this proposal is acceptable to you.
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
November 23, 1984
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
Replacement of Displaced Employee Housing
Dear Alan,
Submitted herein is information concerning the replacement of
employee housing which will be displaced by the Aspen Mountain
Lodge PUD. The information complies with Section 20 -22 & 23 of
the Aspen Municipal Code and responds to the Aspen /Pitkin Housing o
Office letter of February 3, 1984, in Attachment A. The informa-
tion addresses each item raised by the Housing Office letter.
1 -A. Melville II Building. The Melville II building (Haerdle
Cottage) has been used by Mr. Melville for employee housing for
the Mountain Chalet as expressed in his letter in Attachment B.
The four bedroom building houses from 8 -12 employees in the win-
ter and 4 -8 employees in the summer. Averaging the high winter
occupancy of 12 employees and the high summer occupancy of 8
employees gives an average of 10 employees on a year -round basis.
1 -A. Black Residence. The lower apartment of the Black
residence houses a married couple (2 employees) per Mr. Black's
letter in Attachment C.
1 -B. Townplace Apartments. The 2 Townplace apartments have
housed up to 4 management employees per Richard Wilhelm's letter
in Attachment D.
1 -C. Off -Site Housing. The only off -site employee housing pro-
vided for the Aspen Inn, Continental Inn, and Blue Spruce has
been in the Holiday House Lodge. Per Richard Wilhelm's letter in
Attachment D, 7 -10 employees have been housed as needed in the 5
deed restricted and 2 free - market garden level units in the
Holiday House Lodge. As you know the Hillside Lodge is proposed
to be exchanged: for the Holiday House Lodge which will result in
a net increase in employee housing as described in item 1 -D.
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159, Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 925 -4530
low
•
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Alan Richman
November 23, 1984
Page Two
0
1 -D. Holiday House Lodge and Hillside Lodge Exchange. The
Holiday House Lodge is to be exchanged for the Hillside Lodge.
The Hillside Lodge has 14 units (14 bedrooms) while the Holiday
House has 27 units (33 bedrooms). The Hillside Lodge houses up
to 30 employees in a shared room living arrangement which
averages approximately 2 employees per bedroom. If the Holiday
House is used in a similar dormitory manner, it could house up to
66 employees at 2 employees per bedroom. Using the Housing
Authority's recently adopted dormitory standard of 150 sf per
employee applied only to the net living area of the Holiday House
(9,672 sf) would allow for 75 employees. Another example of a
simple dormitory configuration for the Holiday House is given
below:
Holiday House Lodge
21
units -
std. lodge unit -
275 sf avg. @ 1 emp. /unit =
21
emp.
5
units -
2 bdrm.ldg.unit -
596 sf avg. @ 3 emp. /unit =
15
emp.
1
unit -
2 bdrm. apt.
- 917 sf avg. @ 4 emp. /unit =
4
emp.
'2_7
units
40
emp.
As demonstrated, the Holiday House Lodge can easily house 40 to
66 employees in a dormitory manner, which is the likely manner
the Lodge will be used. Therefore, the exchange of the Hillside
Lodge for the Holiday House Lodge will result in no net loss of
employee housing to the community but will actually produce a net
gain as shown below:
Existing
Hillside Lodge- 30 emp.housed
Holiday House - 10 emp.housed
40 emp.housed
With Exchange
Holiday House- 40 -66 emp.housed
I also wish to emphasize the Holiday House Lodge will provide not
only more, but also a higher quality of employee housing because
of increased employee privacy and amenities as the swimming pool,
saunas and lanundry room.
2. Mine Dumps. No employees of the existing hotels are housed
at the Mine Dumps on a special basis per Richard Wilhelm's letter
in Attachment D.
3. 1978 Aspen Inn Expansion. In the 1978 Aspen Inn Expansion
GMP application for 36 free- market lodge units in Attachment E,
Mr. Cantrup did represent a commitment for 24 employee units
housing 35 employees. The Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant feels
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Alan Richman
November 23, 1984
Page Three
this was an unreasonable and as demonstrated unfulfilled commit-
ment by Mr. Cantrup and that the present applicant should not be
bound by Mr. Cantrup's action. To meet the intent of Code
Section 20 -23(2) the present applicant will commit to house 100%
of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units of the 1978
Aspen Inn expansion application or to house 13 employees. (36
lodge rooms x .36 emp. /room = 13 employees.) The commitment to
house 1000 of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units is
generous given that the applicant's GMP commitment for new lodge
units is to house 60% of the employees generated.
In summary, the Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant feels he complies
with Section 20 -22 & 23 of the Code by commiting to house the
following displaced employees:
Melville II replacement
- 10
employees
Black residence replacement
- 2
employees
Townplace Apts. replacement
- 4
employees
Hillside - Holiday exchange
- 0
no emp. displacement
Pine Dumps
- 0
no emp. displacement
1978 Aspen Inn expansion
- 13
employees
29
employees
Once you have reviewed the submitted information, please feel
free to give me a call on any questions.
Sincerely,
\Jilt Curtis
JC:cck
Enclosures \
V
cc: Jim Adamski, Aspen /Pitkin Housing Office
ATTACHMENT A
February 3, 1984
_aim Curils
300 Easi Hyman
Aspen, CC 81611
Dear Jim:
0
As me have discussed, I mei uifh Sunny Uann and Alan -Richman
of fhe Planning Office and addressed some of the concerns in
your lefier daied December 30, 1983.
1. if was conclued ihaf fhe affadavif which has been
filed by Dick Nilhelm on behalf of ihe Can irup esiaie
is deficieni •per secfion 20-22) in the following
areas and requires furfher clarificaiion:
A. There is a need fo idenfifv fhe use of ihe Melville
11 Building and fhe Black residence relafive
io employee occupancy in fhe la 18 monihs.
B. Based upon an independeni invesfisafion by fhe
Housing Office, me beleive fhai 4he Tounplace
Aparimenis have been Wilized on a ions fern
basis by employees of fhe Confinenfal inn. infor-
mation which has been Provided; leads us -fo believe
fhai f , 2 bedroom uniis have been occupied
by such employees.
C. There is a need io ideniifv all of ?he off -sife
housing Wilized by fhe Aspen inn, ihe Blue Spru ce
and Ve CoNinenial inn employees.
D. The need for .= r' on fhe exchange of
ihe Hillside Properiv for ihe Holiday House Prop`_
Per t number of employee uniis in each building
so Kai we could be fur iher" s•iiified relaiive
io ihe deed resiricied nature of Kose uniis.
2. The second PorNon of Your leiier referred io oif-siie
housing and fhe need io mainiain all Previous housing
supplied m0hin Ke curreni Proposal. If was determined
Vai under code secKon 70-272) for lodge condominiumi-
oaf onn ihai all Previous housing is io be maintained.
This mould include, for example, and not limited fro:
fhe housing of fhe Mine Bumps and of fhe Holiday House.
3. The iuesilon also arose regarding fhe 24 employee
uniis which mere included miih fhe 36 free markei
uniis from The Aspen inn GMP expansion approval.
The firsi quesii_in concerns fhe number of People infended
io be housed. Secondly, the idenfificafion of those
jim Curfis
February 3, 1984
Page Two
rep lacemeni unifs
fur iher explained.
MY replacemeni
curreni Proposal.
be helpful.
•
in Me curreni Proposal should be
The Planning Office does not feel
of the 24 unifs is evideni in Me
An explanailon of ihis maffer would
Should vou have anv quesfions; Please coniaci my elf or Sunnv
Uann.
Program Developmeni
GS•CIM i
cc, Alan Richman, Planning Office
Dunn' Uann, Planning Office
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Dscember- 30--j-1-- 1983
Mr. Sunny Vann, Director
Aspen Planning Department
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Sunny:
On behalf of the Aspen Mountain PUD could you please give me your
interpretation of the following questions as they relate to the
Aspen Municipal Code.
1. Section 20 -22 Condominiumization. Attached is an affidavit from
Dick Wilhelm presenting the historical use of the residential
properties included in the Aspen Mountain PUD. Could you and
the Housing Authority review this information and give me an
interpretation if this sufficiently demonstrates that,,development
of the residential portion of the PUD will not reduce the supply
of low and moderate income housing and therefore will not have
any employee housing requirements upon condominization.
2. Section 20 -23 Condominiumization of Lodges. Per the letter
from Dick, he has given the historical use of the lodge
properties included in the Aspen Mountain PUD. Could you and
the Housing Authority review the information and give me an
interpretation of the applicability of Section 20 -23(2) and
specifically your position concerning employee housing relative
to condominiumization of the lodge properties. Could you please.
add- r-e-ss the definition 'of employee housing-,under Section 20 -23(2)
i.e., housing that has been historically deed - restricted for
employees, housing that has been used for employees on a year -
round basis, etc.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter and feel free to call
on me for any clarification.
Sincere ,
w
qm Curtis
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159, Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 9254530
CONTINENTAL* INN
and Conference Center at Aspen
Richard R. Wilhelm
GENERAL MANAGER
December 22, 1983
Ms. Gail Schwartz
Assistant Housing Director
PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
0100 Lone Pine Rd.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Gail:
Pursuant to our conversation.recently of supplying to
you information relevant to any free - market /employee housing that
has taken place on the Aspen Lodge site over the duration of my
involvement, I have been involved with the operations within the
"hotel" site for a five -year period, but it is my understanding
that you only need an aiffidavit only for the past three years.
Therefore, I offer you the following statement, describing,
to the best of my knowledge and ability, the use of buildings
within the hotel site over the past three -year period.
1. Continental Inn (Block 91 - Lots M -R): The Continental
Inn has never been used for employee housing during the high season
of winter or the high season of summer. It has always been used
as short -term rental property. Some employees in small amounts
have stayed at our property for periods during the height of the
off - season.
2. The Chase Duplex (Block 91 - Lots D & E): This has never
been used for employee housing but has been used as a residence for
Mr. & Mrs. Cantrup, and as offices.
3. Townplace Apartments (Block 91 - Lot C): There are four
apartments in this building together with some commercial frontage
on Durant. This property has been used occasionally for manaqement
level employees but is generally used for short -term nightly rental
or high -rate monthly rental ($1000 per month for a two- bedroom
apartment and $750 + /- per month.for a studio). This building
has been rented through the Continental Inn front desk at nightly
page 1 of 4
515 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -1150
Letter to Gail Schwartz
12/22/83
racks rates during certain high season periods, and monthly at other
periods. We have had extension phones, cable TV, etc., provided to
the Townplace from the Continental Inn.
4. Hillside (The Aspen Ski Co. ownership, Block 91 - Lots A
& B): This building has been used by the Aspen Ski Company and has
not been under the control of the Cantrup Estate.
5. Mountain Chalet (Block 84 - Lots A, B, C & D): This
property has been used for occasional monthly rentals and weekly
rentals during the off - season, but during the season (including this
year) we are renting it on a nightly basis at a $40 -60 /night rate
(depending upon the time of the winter season). This property is
booked through the Continental Inn, and daily audit sheets are avail-
able.
7. Aspen Inn: The main building and the six two - bedroom apart-
ments have been used for nightly rental only, during the last two -
year period. Once again, we have had occasional off - season short -
term employee housing, but nothing of any duration; especially during
the high season of summer and winter, it has been nightly rental at
high rates, or high weekly or monthly rates.
8. West & East Chalet: These two chalets have been used as short -
term nightly rental during the season at a $300- 400 /night rate, with an
occasional drop to $150 /night rental. The East Chalet this winter is
being rented at $1250 /month, but the West Chalet will continue on a
nightly rental only in the $300- 400 /night range.
9. The Paas House (Block 91 - Lots K1, K2 & L): This is a duplex,
of which part is used for offices recently, but which previously was
an apartment, and of which the other half is an apartment which I have
been renting the last years at $1000 /month.
10. Melville #2 (Lot 8): This property is controlled by Ralph
Melville and I cannot state the use.
During our meeting, you mentioned that you were surprised
that we did not keep an on -site maintenance manager or similar person
within the confines of our property. I would like to clear that up
by stating that we have some off - premise housing which has been used
for employees periodically & on a temporary basis as needed, and that
many of our employees (particularly on a management /supervisory level)
live down - valley or in other parts of Aspen in housing which is not
part of the Cantrup Estate.
page 2 of 4
Letter to Gail Schwartz 12/22/83
Again, we may house employees for brief periods at our properties (a
few days or no more than two weeks while they are trying to establish
permanent housing within the community) .
Please realize that it was to our benefit in L2 and Ll
zone to do what those zones provided for, which was to operate lodging
(and-benefit from the nightly rentals) rather than employee housing
(loss of revenues). Once in a while, we may have subsidized an employee
being housed in other property outside the hotel site, but infrequently.
Gail, that covers in context all the buildings which have been
rented on the "hotel site." Please advise me if you have any further
questions about the property. I would be pleased to meet with you
anytime to review this schedule. Thank you for your cooperation.
truly yours,
7a
Richard R. Wilhe m
General Manager
Hotel & Property Operations
THE CANTRUP ESTATE
RRW:ld
cc: Spencer F. Schiffer
John Doremus
Joe Wells
Robert Calloway
Alan Novak "
Jim Curtis
:.: Ella Pyle
John Roberts
page 3 of 4
1 �
Letter to Gail Schwartz
P.S. Gail, please also note that although the building
department has not recognized units 191 - 196 at
the Continental Inn, these units have never been
rented out on a nightly basis in the free market
area. We have submitted to the planning office
notorized letters from management level employees
of the Continental Inn from 1069 -1982 (amongst
them an attorney, a developer, a certified public .
accountant, and a licensed real estate broker),
stating that those units were always used as
nightly free - market rentals and have never been
used for employees.
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me
this 2 day of December, 1983, by Richard R. Wilhelm.
My commission expires:
Wi ss my h nd and
official seal.
ary Public:
Address: Q S
page 4 of 4
12/22/83
ATTACHMENT B
(303) 925 -7797
Febnuany 22, 1984
Jim Cuntus
300 E. Hyman Avenue
A6pen, CO 81611
Dean Mn. Cunfii 6 ,
333 east durant avenue
aspen, colorado 81611
The Mountain Chate.t has used the hone a on S. Mitt St., known a3 Haendte
Cottage, as empf.oyee hou6ing Jon many years.
Haend,ee Cottage has been vented only on a tong zenm ba.6.i�s 4on employee6.
Du ing the win-teA, ,there are between eight and .twelve occupant6
geneAati.ng a tentai' income o4 $900 - $1200. DuAing the summer months, - there
are usustty 4oun to eight people in the house, which genena.te,6
$600 - $800 in nen-t.
Sineenety yours,
Ratph Metvitte
Owner o6 Mountain Chatet
IN ASPEN— 333 east durant avenue the mountain chalet has IN SNOWMASS— box 5066
aspen, colorado TWO LOCATIONS snowmass village,
303 - 925 -7797 81611 303 - 923 -3900 colorado 81615
ATTACHMENT*
ANDREWS D. BLACK
P. 0. BOX 7226
SANTA FE, NM 87501
46
C
Ur-a 6
ATTACHMENT D
MEMOR AIIOUM
TO: Jim Adamski
FROM: Dick Wilhelm
DATE: August 1, 1984
RE: Letter dated February 3rd from Gail Schwartz to
Jim Curtis.
Several of the questions forwarded by Gail in February need to
be addressed by me, as I am general manager of the Cantrup Es-
tate properties. Specific questions, per Gail's letter, which
I wish to clarify, are as follows:
1 -B.. Townplace Apartments. Since my original correspon-
dence before Christmas, it was decided that the Townplace
units were not going to be viable on a short -term tourist
basis and thus, were assigned to management level employees
for the duration of the winter. The two 2- bedroom units
thus assigned occupy 728 square feet each and the rent paid
by said employees is $750 /month or $1.03 / sq.ft. The two
units have housed from 3 to 4 management employees and con-
tinue to be used for management employees.
1 -C. The only off -site employee housing provided for the
Aspen Inn, Continental Inn, and Blue Spruce within the past
three years has been the Holiday House Lodge. The Holiday
House has 27 units (33 bedrooms) in a mix of 21 lodge units
with private baths (avg. 275 sq.ft.), five 2- bedroom lodge
units with private baths and kitchens (avg. 596 sq.ft.),
and one 2- bedroom apartment with bath, living room and
kitchen (917 sq.ft.). Lodge amenities include a swimming
pool, two saunas, laundry room and lobby.
The Holiday House has housed 7 -10 hotel employees on
an as needed basis in five-deed-'!restricted and two free -
market garden level units of the lodge. The five deed
restricted garden level units are #12, 13, 14, 15, and 17
and were deed - restricted to low- income guidelines under
prior approvals granted to Mr. Cantrup.
The balance of the free - market units have been rented
on a nightly basis during the high season or to the Music
Associates during the summer or rented weekly and monthly
during low periods. When rented monthly, during the low
period, rents average $350 for a standard room (275 sq.ft.
or $1.27 /sq.ft.), $600 for the 2- bedroom units (596 sq.ft.
or $1.00 /sq.ft.), and $1000 for the 2 bedroom apartment
(917 sq.ft. or $1.09 /sq.ft.).
- continued-
s.M
•
1 -D. As you know, the Holiday House is proposed to be ex-
changed for the Hillside Lodge owned by the Aspen Skiing
Company. The Hillside Lodge has fourteen units (14 bedrooms)
while the Holiday House has twenty =seven units (33 bedrooms).
The exchange will result in both an increase in units and
higher quality units which the Aspen Skiing Company will have
available for employees.
2. The Mine Dumps have not been used to house employees
of the Aspen Inn, Continental Inn, Blue Spruce or other
Cantrup employees per se. Employees of the general commun-
ity traditionally lived in the Mine Dumps but the Cantrup
hotel properties did not specifically hold units for their
employees, rather they are rented based on market demand.
The Mine Dumps consist of eighteen studio.uAits (avg. 308
sq.ft.), two 2- bedroom apartments (758 and 1288 sq.ft.
respectively), and one 3- bedroom apartment (1510 sq.ft.).
The studio units rent for an average of $300 /month
or $.97 /sq.ft, The 2- bedroom apartments rent for $500 and
$700 /month or $.66 and $.54 /sq.ft..respectively.
Hopefully, the above information will clarify your questions.
If I can be of further assistance, please give me a call.
Thank you.
c "ard i _
RRW /ght
A T TA�CHMENT E 0
C
27
SECTION V .
CONFORMANCE- TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS
aa. Reduction in Tourist FAR
The evaluation for maximum points is greater than a 15% reduction
of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal FAR.
Under L -2 zoning,_the maximum allowable rental space for the 90,000
square foot site is 60,300 square feet or 67% of internal FAR.
The maximum rental space under zoning is based on the tourist
rental space increase provision for employee housing calculated at
33.1/3p of all lodging space between .5:1 to .75:1 FAR devoted to
employee housing with the remainder available for tourist rental.
As indicated in the Program Summary, the Inn has 40,000 square feet
of tourist rental space,. .which is 44' of the site's allowable internal
FAR. This is a 23% reduction of .tourist rental space from the
maximum allowed under zoning.
bb. Provision of Employee Housing
The evaluation for maximum points is 751'2 or more lodge employees
housed on site.
As described in the Introduction, the 24 employee units are a mix of
new construction and converting existing units. The 24 units will
lodge approximately 35 people.
i
28 ;
Employee units consist of .2 large apartments of 1,000 square feet
each, 18 lodge studios of 325 square feet each, and 1,500 square
feet of dorm housing. A total of 9,500 square feet of employee
housing is,provided. The 9,500 square feet figure is greater than
the 6,000 square feet noted for employee housing in the Program
Summary building FAR, because 3,500 square feet is sub -grade space
which is.not calculated in zoning FAR. Employee uni.ts are shown on
the floor plans in the Architectural Design section.
The table below illustrates the conversion of employee units to
the number,of employees housed. The 1,500 square feet of dorm area
is converted to units at 325 square feet per unit consistent with
the lodge studio standard.
Employee Actual. Employees
Units Unit Type Sq. Ft. Conversion Factors Housed
2 units Apartments 2,000 sq.ft. @ 2.5 emp. per unit = 5
18 units Lodge studios. 6,000 sq.ft. ,@ 1.2 emp. per unit = 22
4 units Dorm area 1,500 sq.ft. @ 1.0 emp. per 200 sq.ft. = 8
24 units 9,500 sq.ft. 35
Employee housing will lodge 80° of the Inn's 44 total lodge employees
listed in Appendix D. Should some employees decide not to live on site,
the space will be available to other employees approved by the client.
cc. Auto Disincentives
The evaluation is the project's conformance with the city's auto dis-
incentives policies for limousine service, reduced parking and employee
parking prohibition.
•
CONTINENTAL INN
Renovation Plan
0
General: The total renovation budget for the Continental
Inn is estimated to equal approximately $1.2
million. The renovation is scheduled to occur
prior to the summer season which begins June
1985.
Building Exterior: Planning for changes in the building
exterior is still underway and will be dependent
on final recommendations of the project design
team. The building exterior will be addressed by
removing and /or changing the color of a signifi-
cant portion of existing wood on exterior balcon-
ies. Repainting and restaining on the structure
will dramatically improve the exterior. In addi-
tion, the roof lines can be dressed up to change
the current boxy appearance. The design team is
working on plans to improve the entrances to the
restaurant and hotel lobby.
There are severe roof leaks currently in the east
wing which will need immediate repair and eventual
replacement. The budgeted amount reflects a new
roof in this area.
Landscaping will have a dramatic impact through-
out. Cleaning up existing trashy areas and
brightening all areas with flowers and plants will
help project a new look. The colorful flags and
banners; new signage; and exterior lighting will
greatly improve the exterior of the hotel.
Lobby: The lobby will be enlarged by eliminating walls
and removing existing railing. The entire lobby
will be lightened with the use of much softer
colors and a new lighting package. All existing
floor, ceiling, and wall treatments will be changed
to provide a much more pleasing /brighter lobby area.
f'
Front
-2-
Desk: The front desk will be reconstructed to allow
for a more efficient work space. The current con-
figuration allows a maximum of two persons to work
efficiently. The new configuration will eliminate
unsightly key /message cubby holes, and produce a
cleaner looking work space from thE! guest's per-
spective.
Administration: The administration areas include the existing
front office /reservations area, Dick Wilhelm's office,
and rooms 191 - 196. The existing front office/ res-
ervations area will be converted into strictly front
office /bellmans storage. Dick Wilhelm's office will
be converted into a sales and marketing office. The
190's will be used for the reservations, general
management, and hotel accounting offices. This reno-
vation will primarily require carpet, furniture, and
an appropriate lighting package.
Public Hallways: The key to the hallway renovation will be the
lighting.package. Existing lighting provides a
gloomy feeling. With a new lighting package, carpet
and some ceiling and wall treatment, the hallways
will become very pleasing.
Pool /Sauna: The primary concern in these areas is flooring and
paint. Current flooring can be cleaned up and a new
paint ,job will brighten the area.
Meeting Space: With new ceiling treatment and better lighting
the meeting space will become very acceptable. There
is a need for several wall.sections to be purchased
as well as expansion of existing storage.
Food and Beverage: Assuming the Paddy Bugattis lease is set-
tled, we will need to purchase a new FFE package for
the restaurant and bar. Existing carpet is in reason-
able condition. A few structural changes in the bar
will allow for more efficient use of the pool window.
Guest Rooms: Guest rooms represent the major expenditure in the
renovation plan. Our review of the guest rooms has
resulted in the following recommendations:
Six rooms below grade on the north side of the
east wing are presently condemned and cannot be
occupied. These are to be converted to adminis-
trative office space.
Six rooms:in the east wing have only a 78" ceiling
height which is unacceptable for hotel occupancy.
these are to be converted back to maids closets
or into vending areas.
\J
-3-
•
Nine rooms below grade on the south side of the
east wing are considered to be uninhabitable for
first class hotel guests. These will be converted
to some other use which could include office space
or temporary housing for employees.
These recommendations will result in a total room
inventory of 157 rooms. Depending on the room count
in Phase 1 -A of the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project,
additional substandard rooms can be eliminated.
Guest rooms will be renovated with the following
systems:
o New door locking.system
o. Peepholes and security signage
• Smoke detectors
• Carpet
• Vinyl wallcoverings
• Bedspreads
• Drapes
• Lighting
• Artwork
• Bathroom flooring
• Bathroom lighting
• Shower heads
Rooms in the south and west wings will receive all new
furnishings, carpets, spreads, drapes, lighting and
artwork. These items will replace some of the original
carpeting and furnishings. Solid core doors will be
installed from the Aspen Inn construction site. In the
case of the west wing rooms which have sliding doors, a
door frame will be constructed which will accept tLe
solid core doors. This will greatly enhance security
and privacy in the west wing rooms.
East wing rooms will.receive refurbished furniture from
rooms in the south wing. East wing bathrooms will all
be ventilated and tile will be enameled in an attempt.
to improve the appearance.
Fire and Life Safety: The health and safety of a hotel's
guests is a major concern of the property's owners
and operators. The renovation plans for the guest
rooms include solid core doors, new locks and room
security devices and smoke detectors. Other aspects
of this program will be an alarm system which is likely
to be required by the property's insurers and such
items as improved exiting and directional , signage,
improved lighting in all areas, and improvements of as
well as regular maintenance of fire extinguishers and
other fire equipment. Management will work to improve
overall fire and life safety through intensive training
in fire safety, CPR, first aid and general security
-4-
and emergency procedures. Regular inspection
and preventative maintenance of all mechanical
and electrical systems will further improve the
fire and life safety aspects of the Continental
Inn.
Energy Efficiency: Guest room renovation plans include the
installation of solid core doors including
weatherproofing and new drapery. Both features
will improve the energy efficiency of the guest
rooms. Roof insulation and more effective light-
ing will help the overall building efficiency. Im-
proved management including the implementation of
an energy committee of supervisors and line employ-
ees are also factors which ill improve efficiency.
.r
TO:
FROM:
:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Ri chrr an, Planning Office
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary PUD /Subdivision, Condom iniW,
zation, Viewplane - Public Hearing:
Novenber 20, 1 984
114 TRODU CT ION
Following is a comprehensive review of the Preliminary PUD /subdivision
submission for the lodge component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, including
other associated review comments. Given the complex nature of this
project and due to the loss of staff expert��se on this project due to
personnel turnover, I strongly urge that review of this memo not
substitute for a full reading of the applicants' submission, transmitted
to you separately. I also find that given the volume of issues which
need to be addressed, the complexity of many of these problems and ;my
relative lack of background on the project, I may have only superf icial-
ly covered some topics. I ask you to he'.p me to pinpoint the mcst
significant items so that in the coming. meetings I can augment :he
Planning Office review of these critical issues.
APPROACS
The Planning Office has evaluated this project with respect to C "ity
Council's 19 conditions of conceptual approval. We have also identified
various additional issues raised by thi:� application, involvi_na
changes to the proposal subsequent to cc- nceptual approval, other
requirements of Preliminary PUD / subdivision and concerns relative to
other associated reviews such as condominiumization and Wheeler
V i ew pl ane .
At . this time, we have not chosen to present you with a list of proposed
conditions, . although we have begun internally to compile such a list..
We believe that it would be preferable for you to spend some time
reviewing this application and taking comments from the public before
we set forth a detailed recommendation with conditions. we anticipate
that it may require several meetings before we reach this point and
therefore thought it was somewhat premature to finalize our position.
GEN rRAL
Bef ore getting into a detailed review of the project, it is f irst
appropriate to describe some basic points which will affect- any action.
we take. There roint.s are as follows:
1. This application requests preliminary PUD /subdivision
approval for the lodge component of the Aspen Mountain POD.
Permission to phase and separately review the lodge and
residentia? components was expressly granted by Counci..l. on
August 27, 1.984, provided that the approval of any preliminary
stage riot be become effective until. the preliminary review
for the entire FEUD has been approved.
2. The applicants' e pioyee housing commitment for the e- _nt.ire
Aspen Hountai.n PUD has been approved by the P &Z and Council,
subject to conditions. The applicants have suggested that a
recalculation of the PUD's eYriplcyee housing generation be
accomplished as a result of their refi.ner,,ient of the lodge's
development program. The Planning Office concurs that a
revised employee housing cori�rii. _:meat should be submi >`ed
concurs not with the Preli.m:i nary "PUD/subdivision applicatvi.on
for the residential component of the PUD.
3. There have been a variety of sig.n._ficant design changes to the
lodge since its initial review liy P &Z. Some of. the changes
are a dir ^ct: !!'s?� ^nCc to condi.tic!�s imposed by either P &Z or
Council, while others have been induced by outside forces or
by the applicants. No GMP amendment request has yet been
submitted. However, at such time as P &Z finds itself
approaching an action on this preliminary submission, we
believe you should require the Gr,P amendment to be processed.
Should there be aspects of this submission which are unaccept-
able to you, the applicants and Planning Office would prefer
to resoli.ve these problems prior to undertaking the GMP
amendment process. Final action on the amendment would be
taken b_.. Council prior to or :in conjunction with final
PUD /subdivision approval.
4. Financial and market considerations have caused the applicants
to adopt a phasing plan for the hotel. As opposed to
constructing the entire hotel at once, the applicants now
propose: a first phase, referred to as Phase 1A, which
consistis of' the project's west wing. The Continental Inn
will be extensively refurbished and operated for a period
of up to five years at which time construction of the
remainder of the hotel would commence. A fundamental
question :which the P &Z should address with respect to this
change is whether or not the deve.lo ,n ent program for Phase lA
is fully acceptable, in the event construction of the
remainder of the hotel proves unfeasible. Because of the
phasing, a variety of issues crc:p up with respect to infra-
structure, parking, and ocher detailed aspects of the project.
A more in depth discussion of these problems is provided in
subsequent sections.
5. The applicant has offered to donate to the City for park and
open spce purposes, the remainder of the I:ocY? Lumber
property. (approximately 40,000 square feet) to augment the
21,000 square feet of the property which is to be exchanged
for the .City lots and vacated right -o% -way included within
the PUD.
6. P &Z should remember that Preliminary PUD is a distinct
review process in which final approval is granted by the
Commission. However, review of a preliminary PUD should be
consistent with Council's review of the project concept, or
we may find ourselves in a situation where at final plat
Council finds itself unable to accept the plat approved
preliminarily by P &Z.
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
Following below is a verbatim recitation of each of the 1.9 conditions
of Council's conceptual approval and a brief analysis of the applicants'
degree of compliance with the conditions.
1. "The applicants continuing to explore architectural treatments
of the lodge buildings as well as other techniques which
could be employed to give the appearance that, although
under common ownership and /or management, that there is more
than one lodging facility on the site. "
This condition reflects Council's concern with respect to the overall
scale of the lodge component. By requesting that, architecturally,
the project look :Like two separate hotels, I believe Council felt that
the end result would be more consistent with Aspen's so called "village
scale. " A review of the lodge's revised architecture indicates that,
while they have bLoken the project down ii7to distinct building COMpo-
nents, the same architectural theme has been utilized throughout the
entire lodge. rhc applicati.on states that the ledge employs "die_{ = erent
architectural organizations of facade, wi.,ndow and balcony treatment
for each major hotel wing and the e;_ter:i o.,r'. c_',rf_ aces and facade detail
have been designed to accept f urther visual demarcation utilizing
- 2 -
changes in color and stair., as well as sur ace
our opinion, to the casual obsorver, the 7_ =bridge
appear to have been designed by one individual
read as one extensive project.
texture. " However, in
component will. clearly
and, most likely, will
From a strictly 'technical standpoint, the- Planning Office concludes
that the applicants have not complied with the spirit or the intent of
this condition. However, Condition 1 should not be a technical
evaluation, requiring instead some subjectivity by P&Z as regards the
scale and nature of the design. We suggest that you weigh the public
continents on this issue with your own feelings on the matter and make a
statement to Council as regards the appropriateness of the lodge's
design. Furthermore, you should require detailed information on the
materials to be used throughout the project which may help to demonstrate
the applicant's claims of differing architectural organizations and
visual demarcations.
2. "The external floor area of the lodge component of the "aspen
Mountain PUD (i.e., Lot 1) not exceeding 310,275 s. f. and
the external floor area for the entire PUD (i. e. , Lots 1, 2,
3 and 4) not exceeding 438,200 s. s. "
The approved external floor area of 31C,275 sq. ft. for the lodge
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD (i.e., Lot 1) represents a reduction
obtained by Council from the applicants' original conceptual
submis-
sion. Based on the applicants' comments :in the preliminary
PUD /sub-
division application, it is clear that they- assumed that this
reduced
floor area constituted, for all ;pract: *:cal purposes, the
useable
internal floor area of the building. A -8 a. result of the
lodge's
revised architecture, however, as much as 25,000 sq. f t. of
covered
external. areas around the perimeter of the hotel will probably
have to
be included in its external floor area. While some of this
square
footage may be excluded as a result of the interpretation of
our `FAR
regulations, it is clear that the external. floor area of the
hotel
exceeds its approved limit.
The vpplicants contend that it was clear ':.in the numerous discussions
with Council which led to the several reduc.t. ions in the lodge's square
footage that the external areas to the building were not included in
the calculations of the floor area presented to the Council. To my
knowledge, this distinction was never openly discussed. However, it
is critical to note that the principal reason for the increased FAR is
the design requirement imposed by Council. By "inverting" the mass of
the building from the original design., we feel that the applicants have
successfully reduced the perceived bulk of the building. In their
efforts to create design variations and to "punch holes" in the
previously uniform street facade, the design has created significant
covered areas, necessary to the function of the building, and therefore
likely to be included in the FAR calculation by the Building Department.
In addition to the disputed 25,000 sq. f t., the applicants also
propose to transfer approximately 7,260 sq. ft. of approved floor
area from the 700 S. Galena component to the revised hotel. This
transfer is designed to reduce the FAR of the 700 S. Galena component,
thereby reducing public opposition to this project, and to construct a
portion of the approved units int= erna.l to the hotel.
It should also be pointed out, that both the size of the overall PUD
site as well as the size of Lot 1 have changed since conceptual
approval. Specifically, the overall site is approximately 1,600
sq. ft. smaller as a result of the realignment of Galena Street and
various street right -of -way dedications. Lot 1, however, has increased
some -what in size as a result of the transfer of site area from Lot a
necessitated by the Galena Street realigi:iment. The net effect of
increasing the external floor area of the lodge component and increasing
the. size of Lot 1 is an increase in the cKternal FAR ratio of Lot 1
from 1.29:1 to approximately 1.4:1. The extent of the increaser
however, is subject to an exact calculation of I-low much of the approxi-
mately 25,000 sq. ft of .additional external floor area is in fact
subject to inclusion.
m�
With respect to th-e approved external floor area of the entire PUD, .
the applicants purport to be consistent with this condition. However,
oncL again, the inclusion' of the approximately 25,000 sq. ft and the
overall reduction in the entire PUD site area clearly means that the
project does not meet this condition.
In summary, the applicants have riot met Condition 1#2 in their preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission. Their arguments, however, do have merit
-in that they have 'attempted to meet the spirit of what Council has
been trying to achieve, that is a reduction in the apparent mass of
the lodge component of the PUD. A strict interpretation by P &Z of the
condition, however, should result in further reductions in the mass of
the lodge. Should P &Z require a firm opinion by the Building Department
with respect to the inclusion of the covered areas in the FAR calcula-
tion, we will endeavor to obtain-this information for you.
3. "The height of the proposed hotel not exceeding forty -two
(42) feet from natural grade to the midpoint of the roof
with the`. exception of elevator tower areas which shall not
exceed --Fifty-five (55) feet from natural grade to the
midpoint of the roof."
As indicated in the applicants' submission, the revised lodge component
complies with this condition, with the e;'ception of several distinct
areas in which the height to the mid - point of the roof exceeds the 42
foot requirement-by up to three feet. The applicants contend that the
chosen design results in a majority of the building being less than 42
feet and results in a perceived height and bull: which is more in
keeping with community concerns than woul%' be the case through strict
adherence to this condition. The applicants are currently preparing
graphic representations for your meeting to support this claim.
The issue with respect to height is similar to that regarding FAR. The
applicants have not complied with the letter of the condition imposed
by Council. However, our review of the project's architecture demon-
strates to us a successful effort at reducing the perceived height and
bulk of an admittedly tall, bulky building. We suggest that you
review these materials and pass on your feelings to Council as to the
appropriateness of the applicants' non - compliance with the 42 foot,
height limitation.
4. "The applicants' resolution of the Fire Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas
of the ledge site for fire protection purposes."
The Fire Department was concerned about access to the internal courtyards
of the proposed lodge in its review of the applicants' conceptual
submission. The Aspen Fire Chief referred the applicants' consultant,
a specialist in fire protection engineering, to the Denver Fire
Prevention Bureau. The Bureau commented with respect to the design of
the hotel and to the proposed fire prevention provisions to be incor-
porated. In the absence of any specific objection from the Aspen Fire
Department (no comments received) , it would appear that Condition 1 3
has been satisfactorily addressed. The recommendations of the Denver
Fire Prevention Bureau and the specific measures proposed by the
applicants' fire ;.protection consultant should be made conditions of
preliminary PUD /subdivision approval. The Engineering Department,
however, noted in its review of this application, several discrepancies
with respect to the location and number of fire hydrants in . the
immediate site area. These discrepancies should be clarified prior to
final PUD /subdivision submission.
5. "V,7ritton clarifications as to which sub:;'crinti.ve representations
of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis the
applicants intend to implement a_s part of the Aspen Mountain
PUD, in particular, further clarification with respect to
-hose techniques desi gnec to mi.t:i gate the potential impacts
of peak occupancy on adjacent streets. "
-- 4 -
The applicants, in their. conceptual P1'JD /subdivi ,ion submission,
identified a variety of provisions to mini;; J.ze auto travel and parking
demand. It was unclear, however, as to the extent to which the
applicants proposed to implement the various provisions, hence: a
request to clarify the specific measures errhich they propose to under-
take. The applicants' clarifications are outlined or: Pages 7.5 thru 78
of their preliminary PUD /subdivision suLv,ission. In general, these
representations should be made condition.- of preliminary PUD /s,ub-
division approval. Given the very general nature of the representations,
the specific language will have to be addressed in the context of the
final PUD /subdivision agreement and consid.c'ration should be giver: to
the practical aspects of enforcement. I believe, however, that if the
language can be .further clarified as part of the PUD /subdivision
agreement, that the representations of the a=pplicants should contribute
to minimize potential impacts of peak occupancy on the adjacent street
network.
6. "Written clarifications as to the nature and extent of the
improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support
of their request for the vacation of various public rights -
of -way and the granting of encroachment licenses necessitated
by the Aspen Mountain PUD."
In P &Z's conceptual review of the lodge ccm,ponent of the PUD, you were
concerned about whether the various public improvements proposed
by the applicants offset the requested right -of -way vacations. As a
condition of the endorsement of the requested vacations and various
encroachments, both you and Council requested that the applicants
identify the specific improvements to b,� ur,dertaken in support. of
their request.
The applicant has provided the necessary written clarifications on
Page 79 of their application, all of which should be made conditions
of approval of Preliminary PUD. Final action on the street vacat_ons
must be taken by ordinance of City Council..'
7. "The vacation of Dean Street <being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights.- = public use of the street
for circulation purposes, and the submission by the applic €nts
of an acceptable maintenance and use agreement between
themselves and the Mountain Chalet."
The applicants have expressly agreed to realign all utility lines in
Dean Street at their own expense and t-o. retain public use of the
street for circulation purposes. The applicants have included a
recorded maintenance agreement between themselves and Ralph Melville
for the north half of vacated Dean Street lying immediately adjacent
to the Mountain Chalet.
8. "Each utility franchised in the City signing off on all
proposed street vacations so as to ensure that the loss of
these rights -of -way will not interfere with each utility's
current or future needs."
All. utility companies which currently have lines in any of the proposed
street vacations have agreed that the loss of these rights-of-way will
not interfere with the utilities' current or future needs. The utilities
also agree to relocate their current services in the event required,
provided, however, that the applicants -issume all costs related to
such relocations. Individual letters with respect to this issue have
been obtained from each affected utility..
9. "The applicants' submission of a detailed subdivision plat
indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain PUD
site. " r
The applicants have submitted a detailed - ubdivision plat as part:: of
their preliminary PUD /subdivision submissior, "" The Engineering Department
has reviewed this submission and in its memo dated t,dovcmber 6, 19184,.:has
identified several: minor items requiring 1;urther clarification. ` hC-
- 5 -
clarif ication of these issues should be made a condition of preliminary
PUD /subdivision approval.
10. "The applicants' sub+rission of Fin' acceptable survey of _ the..
Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions."
The City Engineer's comments with respect to this issue are al. so
contained in his. attached memo of November 6, 1984,_ and should be
included as conditions of Preliminary PUD /subdivision approval.
11. "The applicants' resolution of the various issues raised by
the Envirorunental Ileal.th Department in their memorandum of
October, 22, 1983, with respect to various specific details
of the proposed hotel operation. "
Tom Dunlop has 1provided us with the attached memo dated November 6,
1984, in which he indicates that the commitments by the applicants on
pages 90 -93 of their submission have. adequately addressed all of his
concerns. Each of the commitments'. sh'ould' be made a condition ; of
preliminary PUD /subdivision approval.
An additional condition which Tom requests is that the applicants
obtain an air pollution permit prior to beginning demolition. This
permit is required pursuant to State air pollution control regulations.
Tom will require that a copy of this permit be furnished to his office
prior to commencing demolition on the project.
12. "The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited to
she two hundred seventy -five ( 2'75) units verified pursuant
to Section 24-11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, .being accomplished
withinfive (5) years of the date of demolition and being
restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site."
Council's conceptual PUD /subdivision approval of the lodge component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, and their award to, the applicants of 172
lodge units, would seam to indicate that they are prepared to acknow3.z,vdge
and verify the existence of 275 existing lodge units which may,: be
reconstructed pursuant to Section 24 -11.2 (a) . The ability to recon-
struct 42 of thest units, however, is tied to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's
approval of the Cantrup purchase and the concurrent settlement of
outstanding, litigation between the Cantrup estate and the City of
Aspen. Obviously, this project is entirely dependent upon the acquisi-
tion of the Cantrup estate and the settlement of the City's outstanding
litigation.
One further issue with respect to this condition is that the proposed
phasing of the project must be coordinated with the use of the GTIP
allocation and the reconstruction of actually demolished units. This
issue is addressed further in the discussion of phasing elsewhere in
this memo.
13. "Written clarification as to the applicants' intentions with
respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis -a -vis how the
hotel will be managed."
Originally, the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge had anticipated
a "condotel" ;=:orm of financing and ownership for the propose(. iiote_l.
This approach, however, appears -co h<<t been abandoned in favor r; of
more traditional financing techniques. The applicants currently
propose to condorniniumize the hotel in order to provide maximum
flexibility during the financing process. Specific comments with
respect to the applicants' request for condominiurni.zation are contained
later in this memorandum.
Both P &Z and Council. have expressed concern about the nature of the
ownership and operation of the proposed hotel. Specific concerns
ranged from the long -term feasibility of the project to the e):per.it�nce
and credibility cif_ the hotel operator. The applicant has indicated
that "management, of the hotel, will be prc,vided by a nationally kiOWn
hotel operator with extensive experience and credibility in the
_.. 6 __
.Yq
u
hotel /conference f.acil.ity industry. " Find selection of the operator
is anticipated by year's end. Given the" fact that no specific Code
provisions exist with respect to this issue, the Planning Office has
no comments to offer on this subject.
14. "The applicants continuing to .investigate solutions to the
problem :of increased pedestrian- congestion in the project
area, in particular, the move of pedestrians between the
proposed hotel, Rubey Park and the. adjacent commercial core. ".
The applicants have presented a study by TDA, Associates, their traffic
consultants, outli.ning specific improvements to be undertaken by the
applicants to minimize pedestrian conflicts. These improvements are
summarized on Pages 103 and 107 of the submission.
It is important to note that the study concludes that- there will be a
relatively minor increase in pedestrian traffic as a result of the
lodge's construction. Assumptions which lead to this conclusion are
that the occupancy of the completed project is only 360 persons more
than the present occupancy and on various trip distribution expecta-
tions. Based on the projected traffic and its, distribution, the study
finds that adequat=e capacity exists at the critical intersections to
handle the pedestrian vehicle traffic movements.
15. "The applicants' participation in the proposed CCLC lodge
improvement district, said participation to be on a pro rata
basis or on such other basis as the district may determine."
Although no further progress with respect to formation of the CCLC
improvement district has been made since the date of conceptual
review, the applicant remains committed to meeting the requirements of
this condition.
16. "The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD
subdivision approval."
The applicant has" clearly addressed each of the preceding 15 conditions
as part of their submission. Although there is room for debate as to
the adequacy with which conditions 1 I_hrough 3 have been met, we
believe that sufficient information is al ailable for you to conduct
your preliminary PUD review.
17. "All.. material representations of the applicants'. growth
management and conceptual PUD /subdivision applications not
specifically referred to above being made a condition of
this approval"
This catch -all condition should continue to apply at this stage of the
review. At the time of Final PUD /subdivision review, the Subdivision
Agreement will have to be written so as to specify the nature of each
of these representations.
18. "City Council's reservation of the right to amend or otherwise
modify the above conditions in conj unction with its conceptual
PUD /subdivision review of the remaining components of the
Aspen Mountain PUD."
This condition is effectively moot, since Council did not modify the
lodge component after reviewing the residential component. However,
P &Z should establish a similar condition to cover its anticipated
review of the Preliminary Residential PUD.
19. "The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD /subdivision
approval., pursuant to Section 24 -8.8 of the I1uni.cipal Code,
in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application is
not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 24 -8.1.1
within ES.ix (6) months of the dat-..e of this resolution. "
Council, at its S- eptember 25, 1984 meet' *'_, moved to amend Condition
ir'19 to make it effective six months subsequent to the Council's
- 7 -
resolution
the absence
prior to the
application
endorsing the applicants' eampl.oyee housing proposal. ]:n', .
of this amendment, the six month period would have lapsed
submission of the applicants'. prel.i.mi. nary PUD /subdivi.sioan
for the lodge comr.)onent. This condition is therefore moot.
ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY PUD REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the issues arising. out of responding to City Council's
conditions of conceptual approval, the applicants and our referral
agencies have provided information with respect to several other
Preliminary PUD submission requirements. A discussion of these issues
follows below.
The PUD regulations require submission of a development schedule
indicating the date construction of the PUD and its phases will' be
begun and completed, including the sequence of construction and
phasing of public improvements. The applicants have changed their
original proposal and are now coming, forward with a proposal to phase
the construction of the lodge component.,.. Ile believe that your decision
on whether to permit the proposed phasing should include the following
criteria:
1. Can the applicants demonstrate adequate Gr4P allocations,- via
the multi -year commitment and the proposed demolitions, to
meet the phasing schedule?
2. Can thc� improvements to the neighborhood committed to bv'- the
applica nts and incorporated in the Project's GMP scoring be
accommodated within the phasing schedule?
3. Have tte applicants adequately addressed all community needs
for the first phase such that if the second phase becomes
infeasible, we are capable of living with the first phase as
a final product?
The initial phase of hotel construction would be to build the 285 tinit
west wing and to extensively refurbish the Continental Inn, while
reducing its unit count from 178 to 162 units, to comply with the
overall 447 unit project allocation. The units comprising the west
wing allocation consist of the entire 172 unit lodge allocation and
113 existing units to be demolished and reconstructed on the hotel site.
The 113 units to be reconstructed consist of 32 units from the Blue
Spruce, 29 units from the original Aspen Inn, 36 units from the Aspen
Inn addition, and 16 units from the Continental Inn. The ability' to
reconstruct the 36 units from the Aspen Inn addition and 6 of the 29
units from the original Aspen Inn is directly tied to the settlement of
the litigation between the City and the Cantrup estate. Furtherm�)re,
the ability to reconstruct 16 of the units from the Continental Inn
will require the removal of those units in order . to qualify pursuant
to the reconstruction provision. We believe that additional information
should be submitted to demonstrate how these 16 units are to be
demolished and what uses will be put in their place so that we can
evaluate the effectiveness of the refurbished Continental and insure
that the unit total for the complex is in compliance with applicable
growth management requirements.
In addition to the 285 lodge. units, the west wing is also proposed to
contain 11 residential units. Eight of these units are proposed- to
come from the 12 unit 700 S. Galena Gr,IP project, with the remaining
three units coming from the 40 unit residential reconstruction credit
already approved for this project. An evaluation of the appropriateness
of an amendment to the 700 S. Galena project in this fashion follows
in a subsequent section of this mein or.andum.
We have performed a preliminary review of the degree, to which the
phasing program complies with the commitments for services and arnenities
found in the GMP > application and have made the following findings
1. Proposed water and sc�-aer service improvements anticipated
8 -
s`
for the entire project will
be .provided in
Phase IA.
2. The undergrounding
of other
utilities is
proposed to occur
on a phased basis:,,
commensurate
with the
construction` of
various portions of
the PUD.
The lodge improvement district
upgrades are also
proposed
to be handled
this way so that
facilities are not
installed
and then torn
up.
3. The applicants have not clearly .illustrated which trails are
to be constructer] in Phase IA. At a minimum, the Dean
Street trail and the ski in access to the west wing should
be provided, and the appl.icant�> should clarify the phasing
for other trails.
4. Some of the conference area (7.000 square feet) has been
relocated to the east-wing and;.would not be constructed at
this time. The majority (14,000 square feet) of the conference
space i_. in the west wing and would be built at this time.
5. The ice-rink at the front of the east wing would be post-
poned until the second phase.
6. The total design concept for tie entire lodge site will not
be achieved at one time.
7. While the total number of parking spaces proposed in connection
with the first phase is more than adequate, approximately 54
of the'1,�e spaces are surface spaces to be provided on the
adjacent second phase site. The lodge GMP application
was scored in part based on the representation that all
parking would be provided subgrade. The P &Z must address
whether- the provision of ongrade parking as a partial
solution during operation of the first phase is acceptable
and whether or not the City can live with continued provision
of surface parking in the event construction of the second
phase is not commenced.
8. The applicants have stated that the drainage solution for
the lodge cannot be formulated until the geologic study for
the Top of Mill site is complete, since the drainage require -
ments for the two sites are interrelated. Since the Top of
Mill project is part of a later construction phase, it is
unclear how the first phase of the lodge will handle its own
drainage and how, moreover, the project will meet its
commitment to improve drainage for the neighborhood, . if the
second phase is not constructed. We feel that, at a minimum,
adequate provision for Phase lA drainage should be made by
the applicants at this time, and that a commitment in the
form of bonding or other acceptable guarantees be made to
insure an overall drainage solution for the area.
Beyond these technical questions, the final decision with regard to
phasing is whether you would be satisfied with a permanent design
solution of Phase lA being accomplished and the other construction
being found infeasible. P &Z should review the project's architecture .
and site design with an eye toward compatiblity, scale and image,
based on only the west wing being completed. In the opinion of
the Planning Office, this possibility is an acceptable one, particularly
in light of the ases currently in place on the west wing site, which
would be substantially improved by the proposed hotel development.
FAowever, P &Z should recognize that one major justification for the
award of the full. 172 unit quota to the applicants was that the entire
PUD environment would be improved and the construction imIDacts on
Aspen would be confined to an identified time period. The applicants
still propose to ,ave 447 lodge. units in operation at the end of. Phase
IA, yet Aspen will be left with the Continental inn still in place,
albeit a refurbished facility, many of tiae public amenities unbuilt,
and no guarantee that subsequent phases will ever occur. .1f Phase II
does occur., it will result in a second construction period. However..
- 9 -
�l
it it does not occur, we mist identify a method for securing the
community that all improvements anticipated-from awarding a multi -year
allocation will be obtained. Without such a firm guarantee, we would
have to find the pliasi.ng program to be pan.; unacceptable approach f or
construction of the PUD.
Beyond the issue of phasing, Preliminary PUD requires that you perform
detailed reviews of_- both architecture and landscaping. I believe that
detailed ar chi tectural concerns can be .fully addressed as part of
reviewing compliance with conceptual Co:�:c?itions 1 through 3, and
therefore no additional information is provided herein. For your
information, Jim Rolland has reviewed the landscape plan and believes
it to be a very attractive and workable plan which would measurably
improve the appearance of this section of downtown Aspen as well as
"the quality of the overall project." Jir: goes on to note that while
a significant number. of large spruce trees currently existing on the site
are to be retained,- eight existing spruce trees which he feels to be
of particular significance are to be removed. Given the potential
emotional public outcry that this removal might generate, Jim suggests
that we negotiate with . the applicants to relocate and thereby retain
as many of these eight trees as possible. In addition, Jim outlines
several additional conditions in his review comments which should be
incorporated as conditions of preliminary ?UD /subdivision approval.
Jay Hammond has addressed a variety of technical issues in his considera-
tion of the utilities, roads and other enc;ineering concerns. None of
these issues appears to require any detailed consideration by P &7, with
the exception o: the Summit Street right -of -way question, which is
more appropriately a concern of the Top of Mill project. The technical
issues raised by Jay can appropriately be handled as conditions of
Preliminary PUD approval.
Jim titilson has requested that the applicants clarify the extent, of the
refurbishing to be _undertaken with respect to the Continental Inn. It
is his intent, I- believe, that improvements with respect to life,
health and safety be required as a condition of issuance of a building
permit. A condit_Lon of preliminary PUD /subdiv;:tiicn approval, therefore,
should be the subi-Assion of a detailed plan for the refurbishing of
the Continental with Jim's condition for safety improvements being -
included as part of the final PUD /subdivision agreement.
A last issue with respect to the Preliminary PUD arises from the
action by Council with respect to the commercial development application
for 4,500 square feet of non - accessory commercial space within the
east wing of the lodge. Council was not recopti.ve to the arguments
for granting an excess allocation to the project and only granted it
3,000 square feet, this year's quota. Therefore, we recommend that
the applicants revise the lodge development program to reflect the
approved allocation and if, at some future date, an additional allocation
is received, submit a PUD amendment for this added space.
OTHER 'ASSOCIATED REV IEVJS
The applicants have requested that we also address two other reviews
at this time, as follows:
1. Wheeler Viewplane; and
2. Lodge a.nd residential condominiumization of the hotel
com, ponent.
In addition, we believe that we should give the applicant some feedback
with respect to the anticipated submission of a GMP ammo rent for the
prof ect.
1. viewp1ane
The issue of Whee "Ier Viewplane review was originally addressed during
the conceptual rev .cw of both components ol, the PUD when the Engineering
Department commented that the buildings ai.?)peared to protrude into the
- 10 -
C
adopted viewplane. The review was not completed at that time, in
order to allow the Engineering Department to determine whether the
viewplane had been accurately mapped and codified.
The basic issue regarding the viewplane is whether it is the intent. of
this review process to principally addres.3 buildings which protrude
into the foreground or to also address buildings up against the
mountain itself in the background of the view. In response to this
question, the applicants submitted a viewplane analysis in their
conceptual submission for the residential component i.11ustrating that
by carrying the viewplane into the lodge district, where the topography
rises, the ground itself penetrates the viewplane in the vicinity of
Summit Street. The applicant'--s further state that:
"We believe that the City's intent in adopting the view planes was
to establish a review procedure to examine, on a case by ca-se
basis, proposals for building sites ,rear the origin of the view
plane, where construction to the full height allowed under zoning
could block out all, or a significant. 'portion, of the view of the
mountains beyond. The angle of the, 1heeler Opera House View
Plane was chosen, we believe, in response to potential development
on the sites between the Opera House and Wagner Parr, w1lich could
have had a dramatic impact on the vi.-.c-,.w from t1ic T.Theeler of the
mountain beyond, rather than in resonse to development in the
Lodge District. City mapping of the v iewplanes on adopted zoning
maps supports this position. `I-ie viewplanes historically have
been terminated on the mapping when maximum heights permitted
under zoning in the downtown area are reached."
Both the City Engineer and the Planning Office generally concur with
the applicants' analysis. Jay has checked the viewplane calcu.lati.ens
and found them to be correct. Moreover, from the standpoint of intent,
it seems clear that the reason for having a viewplane review is to
protect the foreground view of the mountain. from designated parks and
other public places. Therefore, since the °:.lodge building is clearly
outside of the T ^1heeler Viewplane foreground and will not obstruct the
view of Aspen Mountain from a public place - we recommend approval of
the viewplane review.
2. Condom iniumizat:ion
The proposal to condominiumize the hotel component should be reviewed
as per Section 20--22 of the Code for the residential units in the
lodge and 20 -23 for the lodge units. First, as regards the lodge
units, the applicants have submitted the information necessary to review
the request, including the following
a. Lodge services will exceed any provided by the Aspen
and Continental Inns, including 24 hours per day, seven
days a week management and maintenance services,
airport transporation, and the entire amenity package
identified in the GMP process.
b. Employee housing exceeding that currently available in
the various facilities and meeting GMP commitments.
C. Upgrading and improvements on the order. of $49,000,000
for Phase IA, $1,000,000 for the Continental Inn and
$31,000,000 for Phase II. ;
The condominium declarations submitted as Appendix D to the application
include in Section 13 a recitation of the restrictions upon personal
use of the units bV the owners and also address other r.equire;nents of
Section 20 -23. TIe, therefore, believe that the applicants have
complied with the provisions of Section 20 -- -23, with t'lie exception of
Subsection (A)(6)(c) which requires that promissoty note (or some
alternate method acceptable to Council) i, submitted to the City,
secured by a trust deed, i,-1-1 the ax,iount of the physical upgradiriq of
the lodge facility. The applicant should h ;� required to address 1- -his
problE9 before you make a recommendation to Council on condorii.u,,,Azation.
-- 11 --
The applicants have not submitted adequate information to address the
requirements of residential condominijmization. I have been informed
that the residential units are not likely to bu ima.naged as part of :tne
lodge nor to be used as transient lodgincx.' Therefore, it is clear
that to be condominium, ized, they must meet the requirements of Section
20 -22 and not Section 20 -23 of the Code.
The problem in meeting the requirements of Section 20 -22 comes into
play for the reconstructed units, not for the new units which gained
an allocation at 700 S. Galena. The condomiumization of the recon-
structed units requires (20- 22(c)) the applicant to demonstrate to 'P &Z
that approval will not reduce the supply of lo�.r and moderate income
housing.
The applicants, as part of the residential com.por►ent, have provided us
with an inventory of all employee housing on the site which is to be
demolished and have committed to replacement of that. hou ing as part
of their employee housing program. Therefore, any action on °t-he
condominium, ization of the residential units must be conditioned upon a
demonstration by the aplicants in their final employee housing commit-
ments, that no affordable housing is being lost by this development.
Another question you must answer is whether the six month minimum
lease restriction should apply to the residential units. The Code
does not differentiate between units which are condominium, ized in ,our
residential zones as opposed to those in the lodge district. Apparenl ,ly,
there has been G prior policy to not apply this restriction in ; the
lodge district. Your comments on the appropriateness of the six month
lease restriction should accompany any action you take on the condo -
miniumization of the residences. ,
3. GMP Amendment
There are numerous aspects of the lodge which will require your
consideration of a GAP amendment for the project. To date, no vuch
amendment has been submitted, but we feel it is appropriate to Guide
the applicants as to which changes from the original concept you w6uld
be willing to ap�arove.
First of all, the applicants' revisions to the lodge's architecture
and site design have resulted in an altered project meeting many. of
the objectives voiced during the scoring process. Since the charges
in this regard are in direct response to the requests of P' &Z and
Council, we believe that this type of amendment is well within the
intent of our Code.
On the other hand, the proposed phasing program represents a deviation
from the commitments originally made by the applicants as to the
immediate upgrading of the entire site and results in a phased provision
of various public amenities, even though all allocated units are built
at once. P &Z should come to a conclusion --,s to the appropraateness of
the many changes associated with the project's phasing and incorporate
these into a rescoring of the application.
The final major change associated with the project is the movement of
eight units from 700 S. Galena to the went wing of the lodge. In our
opinion, this type of change is not eligible for amendment but instead
constitutes. 2 entirely new residential GMP applications (one b��i.ng
four units at 700 S. Galena, the other being eight units in the 'Lodge) .
We believe that the 12 unit allocation to 700 S. Galena is not a
"black box" which can be moved around on the PUD or otherwise signifi-
cantly altered. `i`he Code refers to modification of applications "in
insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or technical
correction only" and then provides that you rescore any substantial
changes to an a �plicati.on. If you score the appli cation above ..the,
threshold, you -, are then asked to "make recommendations to the City
Council as to _t hre appropriateness of the amen&ie.nts to the original
proposal and:;: i urther conditions of approval which they appl.icant
-� ' 2 �-
0
shall meet."
0
We suggest that y.qu indicate to the applicant that,while the proposed
change to 700 S. Galena might still score above the threshold, it is
an inappropriate use of the amendment :procedure and would set a
dangerous precedent for other GMP competitions. we frequently find
ourselves dealing with applicants who want to make these kinds of
major changes to approved projects, and f ear f or what it would do to
.the process to allow such changes. Pleas4 remember that you score a
GMP proposal in a public hearing but that an amendment is not a public
hearing. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the original process
would be endangered if we allow these _types of changes to occur
through subsequent reviews.
SUMMARY
in conclusion, the Planning Office has identified a wide mariety of
issues to be resolved during the Preliminary PUD review process,
ranging from the 1;ack of total compliance with conceptual conditions,
to items not totally resolved relative to the current review process.
In our opinion, the most signfiicant of these problems are as follows:
1. The applicants have not fully complied with Conditions 1
through 3 of Council's conceptual approval. COndition 1
requires somewhat of a subjective- eval ulation of the project's
architecture and site design. Conditions 2 and 3 are more
techniclal in nature, but require some interpretation by P &Z
of the intent- of the Council's limitation versus the letter
of what was written. 14hile t'zere may be room within the
present design for P&Z to find .compliance of the project
with Council's resolution, we suagest that you also specifical-
ly indicate to Council the areas where the project is
inconsistent with their requirements so the elected officials
can finally evaluate the project's design.
2. The app-1. icants are proposing several significant amendments
to the . o.riginal concept which v ill require a rescori.ng of
the project by P &Z. The most significant of the changes are
associated with the applicants' phased development program.
The phasing means that some of the amenities and services
originally proposed to be provided will be delayed. The
phasing also results in the possibility that the Continental
Inn will_ be r_efurbi. shed, but never torn down, and that the
total site design and architectural concept for the PUD will
never be accomplished. The Planning Office finds this
approach to be quite inconsistent with much of our rationale
for recommending approval of a multi -year allocation to the
project.
If P &Z finds the phasing program to be "inappropriate" we
believe the Code gives you the Authority to recommend to
Council that this amencl:ient not be granted. Iiowever, if you
are willing to accept the phasing program for its immediate
benefits to the west wing and its promised improvements to
the remainder of the site, then you should condition your
recommended approval on the provision of adequate guarantees
that the applicants' commitments to the neighborhood will be
accomplished, regardless of the status of later construction
phases.
As to the amendment of 700 S. Galena, the Planning Office is
firmly convinced that no such change should be allowed
without.having the applicants compete again for a residential
allocation. WE! believe any other decision will be injurious
to our ;ompctiti.on process and is therefore inadvisable at
this time
3. The remaining issues consist "of a variety of technical.
quetsio: c. which we believe can_,.Jy, resolved through f ur. -:Fier
commitments by the applicants or added information by their
13 -
representatives. These iSSLIC'S should be individually
addressed by P&Z, and the Plannil,,g Office will continue to
c0f"PiI
le its list of conditions for any eventual action you
take.
— 14 —
�+.- .•c'.'n:w"88�' Lxa• �'.'4Li�m�.ir�w. w.m.a�een:..if;.
48
:at.1w.P.s.�a.:r:Sc'�.. l..c�yw'u:. $ �. Ua..: u". x. a� ..::..�:N:.*.'.4rvvJw��.t..+s.1 :.L.aia:�w�!'�;:�'ram.lxwr... ,� ,,,... rsa» x., ra'. �,.,, r? w,: �< ti. .i"�.,,w�.:•. "`..:uyu�rx..`ai.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineer.—A-
I
ATE: November G, 1984
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
IIaving reviewed the Aspen Mountain Subdivision preliminary
submission, the City Engi nee ring .Department -would offer a number
of observations. You may recall'my�imemorandum to Sunny Vann of
November 15, 1983, regarding the conceptual application for this
project. In it, I spoke, occasionally glowingly, of the opportu-
nities presented by this project in terms of platting, circulation,
utilities and public amenities. Preliminary review allows us the
.
opportunity to assess where some of these opportunities have
progressed.
In order to simplify some comparison between the prior discussion
in the November 15 memo, I will generally follow its format in an
analysis of the preliminary plan. As I understand, the current
submission is: intended only to address subdivision arid Planned
Unit Development (P. U. D.) issues as they relate to the lodge
portion of the project. The preliminary submission documents,
however, address several items relative to the residential Top of
Mill project, particularly in the plat language. To the exteit
that this information raises questions about that portion of the
site, I have included comments at this time.
1. Water The preliminary submission continues to propose
improvements to the system including the 12 inch main in
Galena. The following items should be noted:
a. The 12 inch main in Galena crosses the sewer lipe
at three locations and will have to respect proper
separation or the sewer line will have to be encased at
the developer's expense.
b. The 12" main should have intermittent isolation
valving.
C. The South Monarch interconnect should be noted on
the proposed utilities plan.
d. . Hydrant locations on the plan do not seem to
correlate with the recommendations of the Rolf Jensen
and Associates report.
-�
f :s-
p
Page Two
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
November G, 1984
2. Sewer- - The preliminary plan would appear to be in
compliance with the representations at conceptual. The
specific plan is subject to comment by the Sanitation
District although we would note the following:
Discussion of the proposed vacation of Dean Street
would' appear to preclude utility usage. Sewer easements
must be maintained where needed in Dean.
3. Storm Drainage - The preliminary submission references
the conceptual documents regarding storm facilities and
speaks of: on -site detention of developed flows. It is
somewhat vague, however, regarding the specific location of
detention facilities. We would recommend the applicant be
required ,10 address the following:
a. Specific location of detention ponding. The
application mentions invest4gation of landscape ponds
and underground parking structures. The plan, however,
does not address location acid appears to leave little
roo;-k: for ponding.
b. Location and extent of connections to the storm
sewer as well as on- site culverting, french drains,
drywells, etc.
4. Electric /Commun.ications - The applicants are propcosi.ng
relocation, of the various power and communications u -i:I. t -10S
to underground alignments in the street Rights-of-Way
paralleling sewer and water lines. In most cases, this
should not be a problem but we would note the following:
a. In Durant the plan would propose power, phoney and
cable TV lines in close proximity and parallel to an
exist -ing large diameter water transmission main. A
detailed design solution must address hog,, this will be
accomplished so as not to interfere with access for
maintenance of the water line.
b. Power or communication utilities under sidewalks or
curb'and gutter must be placed in conduit.
c, Routing of utilities in Durant could effectively
isolate the I.lountain Chalet and the construction
phasing plan should address this aspect. The applicants
should be required to address all such details in the
form of detail design and scheduling at final plat.
'!.fn .. ri S.S T.. �' "i' .�: b . -.F:+' '^IM1 .�_ T^f' YS.« R l"z � k F _ _ _ -��• y�,
.� ,.. «u ..,. - .,,� ,.. R i., * >as,�S�. C.- '�-F .r,. x. ®S.. s:ha �: r�. :_ve..:i1,.�., .. .. .. ..., �°,..tY.s.a. sua r:�. �` r'-...., aa: �„ �e. ilc• ,,._.,_.,..._,��....�r»�a..c�.. i..un- 2;,......�.'1.+ti�;w .. .,.
P
Page 3
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
November 6,1984
B. Fire Prot iQom_
This matter is, of course, subject to comment by the Fi,:e
Department and Fire Marshal as to the appropriateness and
location of the various equipment proposed as well as
whether it adequately replaces vehicular access to the
interior courtyards.
We have noted the apparent discrepancies in the recommended
hydrant locations.
C. Roads /C.irculat gnZJAr incr
The preliminary plan remains true t:o� the conceptual submissi +3n
proposing reconstruction of most streets within the project
as well as new sidewalks, curb and gutter, and crosswalks.
1. Circulation remains improved by a minimization of
driveway entrance conflicts and ;x: good internal route. Tile
following concerns should be noted,, hog. ever:
a. The easement proposed for- Summit Street is minimal
at 25 feet leaving a narrow street for two -way circulation
and virtually no setbacks to accommodate snow removal
or trash facilities. Engineering would continue to
maintain the potential need for Summit Street as a full
fledged circulation route a:nd would suggest at a
mLI)_Jmum further physical setback of structures from the
proposed easement..
b. Platting should indicate proposed temporary public
roadways during construction.
C. [cording of the proposed vacation ordinance in
Appendix E should be amended t -o reflect the reservation
of surface and circulation uses by the public.
2. Parking remains in compliance with conceptual represent-
ations although it has been reduced somewhat in proportion
to reductions in the lodge size'. We would continue to
support requirement of the various measures proposed by the
applicant including:
a. Courtesy Vans
b. Valet Parking
C. Employee shuttles and transit passes.
Page 4
Aspen mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
November 6, 1984
D. CConc u
Condominiumization approval should be contingent on submission
of adequate condominium mapping following substantial
completion of the structures.
E. Street Yaca -Us
1. Dean Street - Vacation of the two blocks of Dean from
Galena to Monarch should be contingent on the following:
a. Reservation of surface and circulation use by the
public. (The current proposed ordinance would not
appear to do so.)
b. Rerouting of. the various utilities to the satisfaction
of the City Departments and various franchises.
Possible conflicts in Durant, for instance, if not
addr,:essed in detail to the satisfaction of the entities
involved, may suggest permanent relocation of power /co-
mmuj:i:cati:on lines in conduit through the subg rade
structure in Dean Street.
F. Encroa.chmenta
The language in the City dedication on page two of the
preliminary plat regarding the encroachments into South Mill
is entirely vague. idowhere does the submission define in
specific ;terms the extent of the encroachments that will be
needed. -It would seem appropriate to define these. areas
dimensionally on the plat documents.
G. Q structi on Schedule and Phasing
The preliminary submission examines in some further detail a
phased approach to the lodge construction. The applicants
now propose construction of the west wing in the first phase
with demolition of other structures excluding the Continental
Inn. Considerable detail in this area remains to be worked
out and we would suggest the following requirements at Final
Plat.
1. Specific design and location of pedestrian barricades
and walkway structures.
2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during constr-
uction.
3. An agreement on the part of the applicants to properly
77, �•a,.°*r s+-�2C m• *n•r,, %"'S'.e*< ""� ..'k r;�.- *m.•.: fie- "**,w^ �i .n^^t na+is -.+s,; `rp4't,"k,.,y°` �;;,c.^��° s .n-... ,.�+ 'eR'Ss»^^. Y v i 1:" , r F"'S"�r°i.: 4"
r
Page 5
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
November 6, 1984
maintain the barricade and walkway system throughout the
course of construction including repairs and snow removal..;
4. Provision of a plan addressing site access and material
and equipment storage areas during .construction.
5. Further scheduling and design 'detail involving the
various utilities. In the event alignment problems remain,
we may yet need to maintain permanent utility locations
within Dean Street.
6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation,
construction easements, and shoring needs.
7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is
contemplated without immediate reconstruction.
H. Vig! W Plane
The preliminary documents do not address the view plane
issue any further. It is apparently -the applicant's assertion,
and we are inclined to agree as detailed in the ',November 15
memorandum, that view plane consideration is not appropriate
at this -site.
1. L!! z Lt: t..rig.
Plattinc! of the Aspen Mountain Lodge does much to "clean uTfl
survey and rights -of -way in the area. Several wedges of
land being dedicated by the applicants will help us in
straightening existing streets and a laud trade on South
Galena serves to improve that right-of.-way significantly.
Several minor items require clarification:
1. Open Space - The plat and dedication language refers to
public open space easements on Lot 1 that are not apparent
on the plat drawings. The applicants should indicate at
least the approximate locations and square footages of these
areas.
2. The documents also refer to Ski Company easements and
the Pop of mill trail which arc not shown on this plat.
These items should be clearly delineated on the residential
application.
3. Description language on the City Dedication certificate
regarding proposed encroachments is excessively vague.
T'"' nS
-
''� - . ;>.4:ui.o...:iY+.:f�ev.[.....:. . >..w. ew. w._..._.;•. :S.i..ri,..'�..a._L.,...3..�..ro _X._.,..adi.� -isr. c2s.s. c... .,. �a: ... ar: l... wt_.<.. r•. ?:,., a.. Ya.... w: r. r. �� ..,f.:taa....4.�.pc�..:.x..... �.r1_..;�.+.%,o.Md.:i,::.�
Page 6
Aspen fountain Lodge.Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
November 6, 1984
� zzclus�.on
The preliminary:.*submission for the Aspen Mountain Lodge Subdivision
and P.U.D. is generally responsive to concerns raised subsequent
to conceptual review. Key items of concern to this office include:
Continued reservation of utility rights in the various
vacated areas pending - final approval and acceptance of
detail design solutions by the various utilities.
- Exploration of providing a wider road easement at the
Summit Street extension.
Further:: detail regarding construction scheduling an-d
provision. of temporary circulation and pedestrain facilities.
- Indication of specific location of storm detention and
control structures.
JH /co /Aspenl4tLodge
I
r
I
p r`
• C•i k A � �:.+ �� � � o �--� � R S: C . 4 vim+. �J ti �,,,�
- "�- - -,----
- Z ` c
It�f
\mow ce-
(� n
`� Ste= S • - -- -- - - -'� - � C `.. -��_ _(�°_ _4-.�� � -_ •'�' \ . _.O � _ !� -C...r � °--�i S -- - ` 4A
�a •
J, w � - - - -- ��� - - - - - --
-
- - - - - -- -- - -- �. - -- - - -- - - - - - -= �� _�. 9 -
1- j
I ,®
,
\ � L C ?' S ��i -ups � - :.�.�q� �✓�r � 'w4� -~ — � - - -- -- - -. - - -- - - -- - -- -- -- -- _ _ -.-
ae
cam. -asc a, . j o -&J - �. c� c-� J a L�.� S�'l�
4 2 _� j�
cJ ✓lni R
- .
11
'1 . 'loo � _ � �.�. A �....� �C-� � \..n�t..�
� �7--�
`� � v-�^•� ('ac<<�,.,��- tAV��
-=---- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -
--
_
\ � L C ?' S ��i -ups � - :.�.�q� �✓�r � 'w4� -~ — � - - -- -- - -. - - -- - - -- - -- -- -- -- _ _ -.-
ae
cam. -asc a, . j o -&J - �. c� c-� J a L�.� S�'l�
C
�%Nu13 0 �s =tth g a l e-n a,os -t re e t
a s p c o lso r -d o�8'1611
303 °9 Sw 020
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:
JIM HOLLAND,
Director of
Parks
DATE:
NOVEMBER 15,
1984
RE: REVIEW CONDZEN.TS - "THE ASPEN LODGE"
- Existing Tree Location& Removal Plan (L5)
- Landscape Development Plan (L2)
The most popular question that comes my direction regarding
proposed development of the Aspen Lodge property is "Wow! That
property has a whole bunch of big beautiful spruce on it . . . the
City's not going to let them just cut those down, are they ?" That's
part of the issue I'm addressing now. I have reviewed the plans,
and I have examined all the trees on the site. The current character
of the site is definitely dominated by about 20 existing large spruce.
The proposed Landscape Development Plan recently submitted appears to
be for all practical purposes a very attractive and workable plan
which would measurably improve the appearance of that section of
downtown Aspen, as well as "the quality of the overall project
(Sec.24- 8.16)." While the "new" prevailing character of the land-
scaping around the Lodge site would tend to hinge on the quality
and size of the proposed Green Ash plantings, which could be excep-
tionally attractive, it's still understandably difficult for me to
write -off the significant contribution that those existing spruce
make to the natural beauty of this area. While Sec.13 -76 of the
Aspen Code regarding removal of trees does briefly address this issue,
in my interpretation it hardly justifies denial of a request for re-
moval of these trees in this case. Obviously, the majority of exist-
ing plant material on the site has to be moved because of major grade
changes or because it's simply not feasible to work around them, some
are worth the financial investment.in transplanting, some are not.
It does establish however, especially in the light that this issue
might generate some pretty emotional public input, a reasonable basis
for negotiations.
t,
C�
0
On an attached copy of Phase l Plan L5, I have identified 8
existing spruce which have been designated for "removal as opposed
to "transplants ". If they too were transplants for on -site use, I
would have no problem with the Plan, but because they are such nice
trees, I would recommend reconsideration in effort to save these 8
trees.
Otherwise, my only other comments at this time are:
- Please spec all Populus Auustifolia as "cottonless ".
- What planting size on the Fraxinus Pennsylvanica? Consider -
their importance to the streetscape, I hope you're talking
3-12-4" B &B.
- The Scrub Oak clumps noted on the plan are actually Service -
berry; the 7" Aspen noted at the N.W. corner of the Mountain
Chalet building is a spruce.
Considering the really Door location of the existing 30"
cottonwood nearest the corner of Durant & Galena Streets,
I would be very understanding of a request for its removal
.should it become a design hazard.
34
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Acting Director
FROM: Sunny Vann
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary PUD /subdivision application
/3
DATE: November/X, 1984
I. GENERAL
Outlined below are some general comments and observations with respect
to this ap 7ubsequent on. A more detailed analysis is
provided ' sections of this memorandum.
A. This application requests preliminary PUD /subdivision approval
for the lodge component for the Aspen Mountain PUD. Permission to
phase prelimin iew was expressly granted by Council at
their August , ] 4 eting ( see Attachment #6, File #5 f or the
minutes of th eti ng) .
B. The application also requests approval to condominiumize the
Aspen Mountain Lodge units and 's, the- refQre, subje t to the
requirements o S ctio 20- � e d Z°
f n 23 .
C. Additional approvals are required in conjunction with the lodge
component of the PUD (e.g. street vacations, right -of -way dedica-
tions, encroachment licenses, etc.) . These requests, however,
will require an Ordinance of City Council to accomplish and,
therefore, should be addressed concurrently with final PUD/subdi-
vision review. P &Z and Council have reviewed these requests in
conjunction with the applicants' conceptual submissions and have
agreed subject to various conditions (see Council's conceptual
PUD /subdivision resolution, Attachment #55, File #2) .
D. The applic ts� ployee housing commitment for the entire Aspen
Mountain PUD has been approved by the P &Z and Council subject to
conditions (see Attachment #77, File #3) . A recalculation
of the PUD's
employee
housing
generatior� w ' ll
most
likely be
required,
however, as a
result
of the
lodge
component's
development program. The applicants propose to submit their
revised employee housing commitment for the lodge component
concurrent with the submission of the preliminary PUD /subdivision
application for the residential components of the PUD.
E. A number of changes with respect to the lodge component have
occurred subsequent to P &Z's and Council's conceptual review.
The major changes are summarized below.
1. The basic site design and architecture of the lodge component
has been revised at Council's request. These revisions have
not been reviewed by the P &Z but are consistent, I believe,
with the Commission's request for addit' nal a chit
changes to further mitigate the to ge impact .mere =�e
Attachment #30, File #2, P &Z's conceptual PUD /subdivision
resolution).
2. Programmatically, the lodge conceptual PUD /subdivision
approval has been revised to include 8 of the 12 residential
elling units approved in conjunction with the 700 S. Galena
GMP application. Essentially, the applicants wish to
transfer the units from the 700 SGalena site to the lodge 4/
in order to enhance marketability- and reduce neighborhood
opposition to the approved residential GMP project. The
applicants wish to accomplish this transfer via amendments
to the residential and lodge GMP approvals. The remaining
four residential dwelling units of the applicants' 700
S. Galena allocation would be constructed on the South
Galena site as two dupl xes. Revised architecture and site
design for thid -g 4j-eet will be submitted with the residential
preliminary PUD /subdivision submission (for detail
discussion of this change, please rexmz= Pa 3) of the
/7
applicants' to ge preliminary PUD /subdivision app .
e/-+
Ar 1-�17
,r�i iU�!�'�* .� -; �r�u�.f,�,.,,�•°�� /ti�ti�vr�a� ��= '^�i.�. %i�tac /tea- 'o, �.ydrti,
3. Financial and market considerations have caused the applicants
to adopt a phasing plan f or the hotel. As opposed to
i
HT�TrT��7 -TT 1T ►- 1 "�_v'�T�_� �°v�- �'wwv�a7� .c�.�w �P — — - - — _ _ — _ _ _ -
j
S
�'2 r1A
constructing the entire hotel at once, the applicants now
propose a first phase, referred to as Phase 1A, which
consists of th west wing of the hotel. The Continental .Inn
Amut'd be extensively refurbished and operated for a period
of up to five years at which time construction of the
remainder of the hotel would commence. A fundamental
question which the P &Z should address with respect to this
change is whether or not we can live with only the west wing
in the event construction of the remainder of the hotel
proves unfeasible. Because of the phasing, a variety of
issues crop up with respect to infrastructure, parking,
etc. A more detailed discussion of these pro bl ems i s
provided in subsequent sections.
II. PRELIMINARY PUD /SUBDIV IS ION REVIEW
Outlined below are specific comments with respect to the applicants'
lodge preliminary PUD /subdivision s mission. For simplicity, -,I have
organized my comments into - esce^+ two categories: mm nts
with respect to Council's conditions of conceptual, appr 2)
r issues an A reminder - P &Z mu s ,oprover
disapprove, orlprove with conditions th-ts application.
A. My comments with respect to the applicants' response to Council's
conditions of conceptual approval are provided below. Although I
have not repeated Council's conditions, my comments a organized
in the same order that the conditions appear in Counc r1n r esolution
granting conceptual PUD /subdivision approval /ee Attachment #.55,
File #2 for a copy of this resolution) .
1. This condition reflects Council's concern with respect to
the overall scale
of the lodge
component. By requesting
that,, architecturally,
�S
project
loo ike two
separate
- edges, I believ
Council felt
that the end result
would-be
more consisten
with Aspen's
so called village
scale.
review of the
revised
architecture -w t
indica4z�
5
•
that, while they have broken the project dow in stinct
building components, the same architectura
X�a lle utilized throughout the entire lodge. The lodge employs
fferent architectural organizations of facade, window
and balcony treatment for each major hotel wing and the
exterior surfaces and fa ca detail have been designed to:
G
accept further visual de as 'on utilizi changes in color
/f
and stain, as well as surface textu e. To the casual
observer, the lodge component will clearly appear to have
been designed by one individual a6y #Dst likely, will read
as one extensive project. Frankly, however, I think the
architecture is quite effective�nd unless Council continues
to insist bdiff erent architectural styles be utilized to
make the lodge component appear as two distinct hotels, P &Z
should approve the architectural L_et -s of this component as
submitted.
Technically speaking, I believe you could argue that the
applicants have not strictly complied with the spirit and
intent of this condition. This issue, however, is extremely
subjective and I am sure that those opposed to the project
will continued to argue that its scale (i.e., the fact th t
covers ms's several city blocks and appears to be
essentially one project) is inconsistent with the village
scale of Aspen. I ugge t the ou discuss the subjectivity
of this condition add allow P &Z and Council to make up their
own mind. includ� however, that technically, it
probably doesn't comply with the condition.
2. The approved external ' of 310,275 sq. ft. for the lodge
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD (i.e., Lot 1) esents
1
a reduction extracted by Council from the applican s riginal
conceptual submission. Based on the applicants' comments in
their preliminary PUD /subdivision a lication, it is clear that
they assumed that this reduced = constituted, for all
practical purpos s� a useable internal 'of the building.
As a result of the lodges revised architecture, however, as
much as 25,000 sq.ft. of covered external areas around the
perimeter of th hotel included in the
lodges external FAR. While some of this square footage may
be excluded as a .result. of the subjective nature of this FAR
provision, it is clear that the external of the hotel
exceeds the 310,275 sq. ft. provided for in Condition #2.
The applicants contend that it was clear in the numerous
discussion 'th Council which led to the several reductions
i
in the 1od es square footage that the external areas to the
building were not included in the calculations of the
floor area presented to the Council. To my knowledge, this
distinction was never openly discussed a 6a be epresents
an admittedly feeble attempt to address thi particular
problem.
The two basic questions here ar ) Is the approximately
25,000 sq. ft. "necessary to the function of the building"
and, therefore, required to be included in external FAR and
2) Did Council understand that their maximum external PAr�eg4g--'
would be exceeded as a res It of changes in the architectural
design of �.
esig the lodge4,�Wi.th respect to the first question, I
believe the Building Department will clearly include a
portion of the 25,000 sq. ft. in the calculation of the
external 4�of the lodge component. With respect to the
second question, I believe Council was attempting to obtain
a significant reduction in the overall mass of the building
A*
and that the extracted reduction resulted in an -Pt for the
OM
lodge site (i.e., Lot 1) to one to one. The inclusion
of a part of this 25,000 sq. ft. in the calculation of
external FAR for the lodge will most likely significantly
increase the effective external FAR for the lodge component.
As a result, the applicants clearly have not complied with
the external4��restriction"';A� lo component as
outlined in Condition.
In addition to the disputed 25,000 sq. ft., the applicants
also propose to transfer approximately 7,260 sq. ft. of the
�w
approved for the 700 S. Galena component to the revised
hotel. This transfer is designed to reduce the FAR of the
700 S. Galena component, thereby reducing public opposition
to this project, and to construct a portion of the approved
units internal to the hotel.
It should also be pointed
out, that both
the size
of the
overall PUD site
as well as
the size of Lot 1 have
changed
since conceptual
approval.
Specifically,
the overall site
is approximately
1,600 sq. ft. smaller as
a result
of the
realignment of Galena Street
and various street right
of -way
dedications. Lot
1, however,
has increased
somewhat
in size
as a result of the transfer of site area from Lot 4 neces-
Are IX411�
sitated by the Galena Street realignment. 4n t*a ct of
increasing the external floor area of the lodge component
and increasing the size of Lot 1 is an increase in the
external FAR ratio of Lot 1 from 1.20maeymmo approximately
1.4 %.. The extent of the increase, however, is subject
to an exact calculation of how much of the approximately
25,000 sq. ft of extern is in fact subject to inclusioneW
n
With respect to the approved external of the entire PUD,
the applicants proport to be consistent with this condition.
However, once again, the inclusion of the approximately
25,000 sq. ft and the overall reduction in the entire PUD
site area will result in the applicants
not meeting this condition.
In 1, the applicants have not met Condition in
their preliminary PUD /subdivision submission. Their arguments,
however, do have merit in that they have attempted to meet
the spirit of what Council has been trying to achieve, that
is a reduction in the apparent mass of the lodge component
11
0
of the PUD. A strict interpretation of the condition,
however, would result in further reduc ions in the mass of
the lodge. My suggestion,. -#-1 n and let
P &Z and Council resolve it.
E
11
si rea will most likely result in the plicants technically
not meetin this condition.
In a nut shell, the a'J>pliqdnts have not met Condition 2 in
their preliminary PUD /su iv %thaey bmission. Their arguments,
however, do have m it in have attempted to meet
the spirit of w t Council has been ing to achieve, that
is a reduct' n in the apparent mass of %el ge c omponent
of the P D. A strict interpretation ocondition,
howevof, would result in further reductions in th�emass of
thg/lodge. My ' suggestion, take a neutral position an2l,,let
&Z and Council resolve it.
4. The Fire Department was concerned about access to the
internal courtyards of the proposed lodge in its review of
the applicants' conceptual submission. The Aopon Fire Chief
referred the applican s consultant, a specialist in fire
protection engineering, to the Denver Fire Prevention Burea
The - ^_..L Bureau commented
with respect to the design of the hotel and to the proposed
fire prevention provisions to be incorporated. In the
bsenc.e of any, specific objection from the Aspen Fire
Department, it wow uld- appear that Condition *3 has been
A
satisfactorily addressed. The recommendations of the Denver
Fire Prevention Bureau Vee Page 70, preliminary PUD /sub-
division submission) and the specific measures proposed by
the applicants� ire protection consultant �iee Page 7�
-pr- � �d_� prT� /subdivision submissi m;� should be made
conditions Celiminary PUD /subdivision approval. The
n
Engineeri epartmen , however, not n its review of this
applica ion t di screpa c�1s i th respect to the
location .4number of f' hydrants in the immediate site
area. Th,Ys{ discrepa cy ould be clarified prior to final
4
PUD /subdivision submission.
5. The applicants, in their conceptual PUD /subdivision submission,
identified a variety of provisions to minimize auto travel
and parking demand. It was unclear, however, as to the
extent to which the applicants proposed to implement the
various provisions, hence a request to clarify the specific
measures which they propose to undertake. The applicants'
S,
are outlined on Pages 75 thru 78 of their
preliminary PUD /subdivision. submission. In general, these
representations should be made conditions o ,')PUD /sub-
division approval. Given the very gen l nature of the
representations specific language rr -- 7ayy -to be addressed
n
in the context of �kfinal PU '? agreement and consideration
should be given to the practical aspects of enforcement. I
believe, however, that if the language can be further
clarified as part of the l PUDY agreement, that the
representations of the applicants should
contribute to the minimalization of potential impacts of
peak occupancy on the adjacent street network.
6. In its conceptual review of the lodge component of the PUD,
the P &Z was concerned about whether the various public
improvements sed by the applicants offset the requested
right -of -way vacations. As condition of their art
of the requested vacati¢n� various encroachments, they
requested that the applicants ..____ _ -__j idenfity the
specific improvements to be undertaken in support of their
request. The Council, however, has conceptually agreed to
the requested vaccatipns„i hange for the applicants
donation of the eae�rr�>JJ�r property. As a result, this
condition is for all practical purposes moot. The applicants'
clarifications, which are outlined on Pages 79 thru 81 of
their preliminary submission, contain specific representations
which should be made conditions of �Z-4UD /subdivision
approval. In addition, their clarifications should probably
be included in the Council ordinance granting the requested
vacati 61 n support of Council's action.
• •
7. The applicants, in their preliminary PUD /subdivision submission
have agreed that the vacation of Dean Street is expressly
conditioned upon the realignment of all utility lines at the
applicantoexpense, as may be required, and' the retention of
public use of the street for circulation purposes. This
commitment should be a condition of�C- PUD /subdivision
approval and appear i�the final PU agreement
w
Conditi n 7 also required the applicants to submit mutually
acceptable maintenance and use agreement between themselves
and the Mountain Chalet for the north half of vacated Dean
Street lying immediately adjacent to the Mountain Chalet.
The applicants have a cut such an agreement with Ralph
Melville and recorde with the Pitkin County Clerk.
This agreement, however, should be reviewed by the City
Attorney and City Engineer and any changes accomplished
prior to final PUD /subdivision approval.
8. All utility companies which currently have lines in any of
the proposed street vacations have agreed that the loss of
these rights -of -way will not interfer with the utiliti s�
current or future needs. The utilities also agree to
relocate their current services in the event require
provided, however, that the applicants assume all coqf:�)
related to such relocations. Individual letters with respect
to this issue are provided for each utility and are located
on Pages 83 thru 89 of the applicants' preliminary PUD /sub-
division submission. We need to discuss with Jay whether or
not the City should VE condition its approval upon the
applicants' assumption of related relocation co4or whether
we should leave this as a matter between utility companies
and the applicants.
9. The applicants have submitted a detailed subdivision plat as
part of their preliminary PUD /subdivision submission. The
Engineering Department has reviewed this submission and has
0 •
identified several minor items requiring clari-
fication. The clarification of these issues should be made
a condition of preliminary PUD /subdivision approval(,, � � jJ
10. My comments with respect to ConditioA0 are the same as
}wee Conditio9.
11. Tom Dunlop has indicated that the commitments made by the
applicants to comply with the Environmental Health Departme �s
review comments, dated October 22, 1983, are sufficient to
warran�)no further detailed discussion of environmental
issues at this time (,iee Attachment # File # for
Tom's conceptual review comments). The specific commitments
which the applicants have propose ire ponse to Avironmental
/i�eal hs oncernpare found on Pages 90 thru 93 of the applicants/
preliminary PUD /subdivision submission. These commitments
should be made a condition of preliminary PUD /subdivision
approval.
An additional t which Tom requests is that the
applicants obtain an air pollution permit prior to beginning
demolition. This permit is required pursuant to State
^' air pollution control regulations. Tom will
require that a copy of this permit be furnished to his
office prior to commencing demolition on the project �2u %i5
12. Councils' conceptual PUD /subdivision approval of the lodge
compone o e Aspen Mountain P nd their award to the
applic nts 17 lodge units, would eem to indicate that they
are prepared to acknowledge and verify the existence of 275
existing lodge units which may be reconstructed pursuant to
Section 24 -11.2 (a The ability to
reconstruct 42 of these units, however, is tie to the
U.S. Backruptcy Cou &approval of the Cantrup 49yevt and the
concurrent settlement of outstanding ligitation between the
Cantrup estate and the City of Aspen. Obviously, this
y � •
project is entirely dependent upon the au' sitio
&1itigatUn.
n of the
Cantrup estate and the settlement of {�
1l /
Condition412 is essentially a housekeeping condition and
should be included as a condition of =ZPUD/subdivision
approval.
13. Originally, applq7omof s for the Aspen Mouptain Lodge had
anticipated ondo financing �fi ownership for
the proposed hotel. Thi approach, however, appears to have
been abandoned in f avor� more traditional financing tech-
niques. The applicants amcurrently propose to condominiumize
the hotel in order to provide maximum flexibility during the
financing process. Specific comments with respect to the
appli can sI request for condomini umiz ation are contained in
/-,—I
li?ctio ,of this memorandum.
Both P &Z and Council were concerned about the nature of the
ownership anjd operation of the proposed hotel. Specific
concerns ran � rom the long -term feasibility of the project
to the experience and credibility of the hotel operator.
i
All of these concerns should be addressed by the applican s
prior to Councils' final PUD /subdivision consideration.
However, I really have no insi hts as o what conditions P &Z
might wish to place upon the (mot this time.`
14. P &Z and Council were both concerned about increased pedestrian
congestion in the immediate site area. TDA, the applican s
/91�
traffic consultants, have prepared a14tEt-h study to
address these concerns. The results of this study are
summarized on Pages 102 thru 107 of the applicants' preliminary
PUD /subdivision submission.
Essentially, the study outlines specific improvements to be
undertaken by
the applicants to minimize pedestrian
conflicts
and concludes
that the additional
pedestrian trips
generated
by the hotel will have mini al impa 'n the immediate site
area. TDA's analysis is complex and is somewhat
, subjective in nature given a variety of assumptions made by
the con ultants. Rather than debating the specific findings,
I imply summarize the conclusions for P &Z in order to
determine whether their concerns have been adequately
addressed. The specific pedestrian improvements which the
applicants propose to make should be included as a condition
ofl:t@ PUD /subdivision approval.
15. The applicants committed, as part of their conceptual
PUD /subdivision review, to participate in the proposed C�
LC lodge improvement district on whatever basis may be
determined by the district to be appropriate. This commitment
remains unchanged although no further progress with respect
to formation of the district has been made to my knowledge.
Condition 15 should obviously also be a condition of pre-
liminary PUD /subdivision approval.
16. The applicants have addressed each of the preceeding
conditions as part of their preliminary PUD /subdivision
submission. The extent to which they have adequately
addressed conditi61 thru 15, however, is obviously open
to debate as my comments indicate. Sufficient informatics
has been submitted, however, to allow proceeding with
preliminary PUD /subdivision review. We may want to require
additional information prior to formerly granting preliminary
PUD /subdivision approval.
17. This is a ^-ff condition which should also be included
in the applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision approval. A
partial listing of these representations is provided on Pad5e5
108 thru 111 of the applicnats' preliminary PUD /subdivision
submission. I suggest that we compile a complete list
starting with the applicants' conceptual submission and
continuing through final PUD /subdivision approval so as to
0 0
facilitate preparation and review the applicants' final
PUD /subdivision agreement.
18. Council reserved the right to ammend or otherwise modi C49)
their conceptual PUD /subdivision approval of the lodge
component following review of the remaining compoments
of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Council has granted conceptual
approval to the PUD's remaining compoments and no f rther
changes were requested in the lodge component i.
19. Counci ,�j l, its September 25, 1984 meeting, moved to amend
Conditi n`'� to make it effective six months subsequent to
the Coun 5 esolution g the applicants'
employee housing proposal. In the absence of this amendment,
the six month period would have lapsed prior to the submission
of the applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision applica ' on
f o lodge
r the 1 ge � ��
-72,
1�3
AI'�.,..,
►)
r
ASPEN *PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDIN2 DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Dept.
FROM: Jim Wilson, Fire Marshal95-�
DATE: November 7, 1984
RE: Aspen Mountain.Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision
My comments of a Fire, Life and Safety nature, regarding the Aspen Mountain Lodge
Preliminary GMP and PUD /Subdivision submittal are limited to the proposed
continued use of the Continental Inn. Inadequate maintenance and repair of
this building has effectively ended it's useful life. The typical response
to this Department's requests.to upgrade the building has been "economic,
hardship ", and the current developers are already singing the same tune
in reference to this project.
I am requesting the developers to qualify the extent of the "re- furbishing"
planned for the Continental Inn. The Inn should be brought into compliance
with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, Section 7 -196,
Aspen Code, and conditions deeming the building "unsafe" by current codes
must be abated prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project.
This requirement shall not preclude the issuance of any demolition permits.
JW /ar
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer µ4�2
0
DATE: November 6, 1984
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision
I think it would be good for the applicant at this time to address park dedication
fees for the free market residential portion of this project. I know there will
be some bedroom count credit and I feel this should be agreed on at this
time. Granted employee housing that is low to moderate income can be exempt
from park dedication fee by Councils approval.
Also, if lodge units are condominiumized, do they now fall into the residential
category or do they remain commercial.
Park dedication fees are collected prior to issuance of a building permit. In
the case of Aspen Chance Subdivision, Council agreed to delay park dedication
fees until a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for each building. G7hat
will Council work out, if anything, on this project.
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
BD /ar
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, City. Engineer
DATE: November 6, 1984
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the Aspen Mountain Subdivision preliminary
submission, the City Engineering Department would offer a number
of observations. You may recall my memorandum to Sunny Vann of
November 15, 1983, regarding the conceptual application for this
project. In it, I spoke, occasionally glowingly, of the opportu-
nities presented by this project in terms of platting, circulation,
utilities and public amenities. Preliminary - review allows us the
opportunity to assess where some of these opportunities have
progressed.
In order to simplify some comparison between the prior discussion
in the November 15 memo, I.will generally follow its format in an
analysis 'of the preliminary plan. As I understand, the current
submission is intended only to address subdivision and Planned
Unit Development (P.U.D.) issues as they relate to the lodge
portion of the project. The preliminary submission documents,
however, address several items relative to the residential Top of
Mill project', particularly in the_ plat language. To the extent
that this information raises questions about that portion of the
site, I have included comments at-.this time.
A. Utilities
1. Water - The preliminary submission continues to propose'
improvements to the system including the 12 inch main in
Galena. The following items should be noted:
a. The 12 inch main in Galena crosses the sewer line
at three locations and will have to respect proper
separation or the sewer line will have to be encased at
the developer's expense.
b. The 12" main should have intermittent isolation
valving.
C. The South Monarch interconnect should be noted on
the proposed utilities plan.
d. Hydrant locations on the plan do not seem to
correlate with the recommendations of the Rolf Jensen
and Associates report.
,
Page Two
Aspen Mountain Lodge: Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D..
November 6,'1984
2. Sewer - The preliminary' plan would appear to be in
compliance with the .rep'resentation's at conceptual. The
specif,ic.plan is subject to comment by the Sanitation
District although we would note the following:
Discussion of the proposed vacation of Dean Street
would appear to preclude utility usage. Sewer easements
must be maintained where needed in Dean.
3. Storm Drainage - The preliminary submission references
the conceptual documents regarding storm facilities and
speaks of on -site detention of developed flows. It is,
somewhat` vague, however, regarding the specific location of
'detention facilities. We would recommend the applicant be
required to address'' the following:
a. Specific location of detention ponding.. The
application mentions investigation of landscape ponds
and underground parking structures. The plan, however,
�• does not address location and appears to • leave little ,
room for ponding:'
b. Location and extent of co.nnecti.ons to - the` storm
sewer as. well as on -site culverting,.french drains,
drywells,' etc.
4. 'Electric/Communications - The applicants are proposing
-relocation of the various power and communications utilities
to underground alignments in the street Rights -of -Way
paralleling sewer and - water lines. In most cases, this
should not be; a. problem but we would note.the following:
a. In Durant the plan would propose power, phone, and
cable TV lines in close proximity and - parallel to an
existing large diameter water transmission'. main. A
detailed design solution must address how this will be
accomplished. so as not to interfere with access for
maintenance of the waterline.
b. Power or communication utilities under sidewalks or
curb and gutter must be placed in conduit.
c. Routing of utilities in Durant could effectively
isolate the Mountain. Chalet and the construction
phasing plan,should address this aspect: The applicants
should be required to address all:such details in the
form of detail design and scheduling at final plat.
qr ,
Page 3
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D..
November 6, 1984
B. Fire Protection°
This ,matter is, of course, subject to comment by the Fire
Department and Fire Marshal as to the appropriateness and
location of the various equipment proposed as well as
whether it adequately - replaces vehicular access to the
interior courtyards.
we have noted the apparent discrepancies in the recommended
hydrant locations..
C. Roads /Circulation /Parkins
The preliminary plan remains true to the conceptual submission
proposing reconstruction of most streets within the project
as well as new sidewalks, curb and gutter, and.crosswalks.
1.- Circulation remains. improved by a minimization of
driveway entrance. conflicts and a good internal route. The
f ollowing, concerns should be noted, however:
a. The easement proposed for Summit ,Street is minimal
at 25 feet leaving -a narrow street for two -way circulation
and virtually no setbacks to accommodate snow removal
or trash facilities. Engineering would continue to
maintain the potential need for Summit Street as a full
fledged circulation route and , would suggest at a,.
minimum-further physical , setback of structures from. the
proposed easement.
b. Platting should indicate proposed temporary public-
roadways during construction.
C. Wording of the proposed vacation ordinance in
Appendix E should be amended to reflect the reservation
of surface and circulation uses by the public.
2. Parking remains in compliance with conceptual represent -
ations.although it has been reduced somewhat in proportion
to reductions in the lodge size. We would :continue to
support requirement of the various measures proposed by .the
applicant including:
a. Courtesy Vans
b, Valet Parking
c. 'Employee shuttles and transit passes.
0
•
Page 4
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.'
November 6, 1984
D. Condominiumization
Condominiumiza,tion approval should be contingent on submission
of adequate condominium mapping following substantial
completion of the structures.
E. Street Vacations
1. Dean Street - Vacation of the two blocks of Dean from
Galena to'Monarch should be contingent on the following:
a. Reservation of surface and circulation use by the
public. (The current proposed ordinance would not
appear to-do so.)
b. Rerouting of the various utilities -to the satisfaction
of the City Departments and various franchises.
Possible conflicts in Durant, for instance, if not
addressed'in detail to the satisfaction of the entities
involved, may suggest permanent relocation of power /co-
mmunication lines in conduit through the subgrade
structure in Dean Street.
F. Encroachments
The language in the City dedication on page two of the
preliminary plat regarding the encroachments into South Mill
is entirely vague. Nowhere does the submission define in
specific terms the extent of the encroachments that will be
needed. :It would seem appropriate to define these areas
dimensionally on the plat documents.
G. Construction Schedule and Phasing
The preliminary submission examines in.some further detail a
phased approach to the lodge construction. The applicants
now propose construction of the west wing in the first phase
with demolition of other structures excluding the Continental
Inn. Considerable detail in this area remains-to be worked
out and we would suggest the following requirements at Final
Plat.,
1. Specific design and location of pedestrian, barricades
and walkway structures.
2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during constr-
uction.
3. An agreement. on the part of the applicants to properly
Page 5
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and'P.U.D.
November 6, 1984
maintain the barricade and walkway system throughout the
`course,>of_-construction including repairs and snow removal.
4. Provision of a plan addressing site access and material
and.equipment storage areas during.construction.
5. Further scheduling and design detail involving the
various utilities. In the event alignment problems remain,
we may yet need to maintain permanent utility locations
within Dean Street.
6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation,
construction easements, and shoring needs.
7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is
contemplated without immediate reconstruction.
H. View Plane
The preliminary documents do not address the view plane
issue any further. It is apparently the applicant's assertion,
and we are inclined to agree as detailed in the November 15
memorandum, that view plane consideration is not appropriate .
at this site.
I. Platting
Platting of the Aspen Mountain Lodge does much to "clean up
survey and rights -of -way in the area. Several wedges of
land being dedicated by ' the applicants will help us in
straightening 'existing streets and a land trade on South
Galena serves to improve that right -of -way significantly.
Several minor items require clarification:
1. 'Open Space - The plat and dedication language refers to
public open space easements on Lot ,l that are not apparent
on the plat drawings. The applicants should indicate at
least the.approximate locations and square footages of these
areas...
2. The documents also refer to Ski Company easements and
the'Top of Mill trail which are not shown on this plat.
` These items should be clearly delineated on. the .residential
application.
3. Description language. on the City Dedication certificate
regarding proposed encroachments is excessively vague.
S
r
Page 6
Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Subdivision and P.U.D.
November-6, 1984
Conclusion
The preliminary submission for the Aspen Mountain Lodge Subdivision
and P.U.:D. is generally responsive to-concerns raised subsequent
to conceptual review. Key items of concern to this office include:
- Continued reservation of utility rights in - the various
vacated areas .pending final approval and acceptance of
detail design solutions by the various utilities.
- Exploration of .,.providing a wider road easement at the
Summit Street extension.
Further detail regarding construction scheduling and
provision of temporary circulation and pedestrain facilities.
Indication of specific location of storm detention and
control structures.
JH /co /AspenMtLodge
• SPEN *PITKIN 0
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Sunny Vann, Director
Planning Office
LNOW
-7t ti
Thomas S. Dunlop, Director
Environmental Health Department
DATE: November 6, 1954
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GiIP /Subdivision
The above- referenced submittal has been reviewed for the concerns
listed in Condition #11 of the conceptual approval, Resolution
Number 84 -11.
The commitments made by the applicant to comply with review
comments of this office, dated October 22. 1983, are sufficient
to warrant no further detailed discussion of environmental issues
by this department.
That is, with one exception.
It will be a further requirement that, due to the magnitude of
the demolition proposed, the applicant obtain an Air Pollution
Permit prior to beginning demolition. The permit is required
under State of Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulation Three.
Further, the applicant shall document, through analytical analysis
of the structures to be razed, that asbestos does or does riot
exist within the buildings. This shall be completed prior to
initiation of the demolition.
The demolition permit can be obtained from the Colorado Health
Department, Air Pollution Control Division, 4210 E. 11th Avenue,
Denver, Colorado 80220. Contact person is Dick Fox who can also
be reached at 320 -4100.
The asbestos testing shall be performed by a private consulting
firm who specializes in collection and analysis of such fibers.
A copy of the permit and asbestos test results shall be furnished
to this office prior to commencing work on the project.
TSD /co /AspenLodge
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
av
CITY OF"ASPEN
130 W -outh galena. sltreet
x
aspen, colorado 81611
3:03- 925 - 20.2; 4
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 5, 1984
TO: City Council
City_ Manager
V Planning Director"
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Cantrup Bankruptcy
p 6 od
NOV - 61984
Forwarded herewith in connection with the Cantrup bankruptcy, is a
copy of the disclosure statement filed with the bankruptcy court
on October 15, 1984. A hearing on the adequacy of the disclosure
statement is scheduled for Thursday, December 21, 1984, at 1:30
p.m., in the Eankruptcy Courtroom, Denver.
This most recent version is more lengthy and complicated than pre-
vious versions which have already been distributed, and provides
the best explanation of the status of the bankruptcy, including a
discussion of efforts following Judge Matsch's July 3, 1984, deci-
sion reversing the confirmation order. Although voluminous, I
have decided to once again distribute complete copies to each of
you since it contains so much valuable information concerning the
Cantrup Estate properties at the base of the mountain and at the
Meadows.
You might also note on page 35 that the Estate and Commerce have
agreed to share the City of Aspen real.estate transfer tax "if
applicable ". I should remind you that we are anticipating a court
battle with regard to the applicability of the RETT.
Please do not hesitate to call or stop by my office if you have
any questions.in this matter.
PJT /mc
Attachments
•
9
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COU
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORA
UNIM STATES BANKRUPXY COURT
DISTMCT CF COLOP.A00
Off 1 5198A
IN RE: ) BRADrORO L. BOLTON, HANS. B. CANTRUP Clerk
S. S. IT 074 -26 -5744, and )
JUNE -ALLEr. L'4CSS CANTRUP, )
a /k /a JUI'IE MOSS, )
a /k /a JUNE CANTRUP, )
a/k /a JULIE I -I. ' CANTRUP )
S. S. v 375-20-1891, )
d /b /a CANTRUP INVESTI•IENTS, d /b /a CANTRUP )
DEVELOPI•IENT, d /b /a HBC INVESTMENTS,
individually and as shareholders, )
Officers and directors of ASPEN HOTEL )
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Colorado corporation ) CASE NO.
d /b /a CONTINENTAL INN, d /b /a ASPEN INN, )
d /b /a ASPEN MEADOWS, d /b /a BLUE SPRUCE, )
.d /b /a CORTINA LODGE, d /b /a NUGGET LODGE, )
d /b /a SWISS CHALET, d /b /a HOLIDAY HOUSE )
f/d/b/a WILDWOOD INN, f /d /b /a WOODSTONE )
INN, d /b /a ALPINA HAUS, d /b /a ASPEN )
CONFERENCE CENTER, and as former share - )
holders, officers, and directors of ` )
ASPEN RESERVATIONS, INC., a Colorado
Corporation, and ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRAVEL, )
INC., and as a former joint venturer in
MOSS ASSOCIATES, )
Debtors. j.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
83-B 01161'G
Spencer F. Schiffer, Chief Executive Officer for the Estate
of Hans B. Cantrup and June M. Cantrup ("Schiffer"), Hans B. Cantru _
and June Allen I,Ioss Cantrup ( "the Debtors ") , Commerce Savings
Association of Angleton, Texas .("Commerce"), and the Unsecured
Creditors' Committee ( "the Committee "), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1125,
submit the following Disclosure Statement to all of the Debtors'
known claim and interest holders. This statement is provided to dis-
close such information as is necessary to enable holders of claims or
interests to make an informed decision in exercising their right to
vote for acceptance or rejection of the Plan of Reorganization ( "the
Plan ") filed by the Debtors, Commerce, and the Unsecured Creditors'
Committee (collectively "the Proponents ") with the Bankruptcy Court.
A copy of the Plan accompanies this. statement, and is attached hereto
as Exhibit W'.
x�
The Court will set a date for a hearing on the confirmation
of the Plan. In order to obtain confirmation of the Plan by t1he
Bankruptcy Court, the Plan must be accepted by a requisite number of
creditors based upon the amounts of their claims as well as the
number of such .claims. These requirements are enumerated under a
section of this Disclosure Statement entitled "Approval of the
Plan."
The Proponents recommend that you vote on the Plan. No
representations. concerning the Plan are authorized by the Proponents
other than as is set forth in this Statement. Due to the complexityi
of the Debtors' financial affairs, the Proponents are unable to war-
rant or represent that the information contained herein is without
error, although all reasonable efforts under the . circumstances have
been made to be accurate.. While all of the Proponents believe that
the valuations and. other facts set forth in this Disclosure Statement
represent a fair disclosure of all pertinent matters, it is the
mutual understanding and agreement of all parties hereto that in the
event the Plan cannot be confirmed, nothing contained herein shall
constitute an admission by any signatory.
-2-
III. ANALYSIS OF DEBTORS' PROPERTIES. . . . . . . . . . 13
A. Description of Properties
to
be
Sold
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING THE DEBTORS' BUSINESS;
Plan
EVENTS LEADING TO CHAPTER 11 PROCEEDINGS .
. . . . . . .
.1
II. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS DURING CHAPTER 11
PROCEEDINGS.
.4
A.
Appointment of Chief Executive Officer
. . . . . . .
.4..
B.
Loan. t,o Redeem Properties From Foreclosure
Sale. . .
.4
C.
Sale of Debtors' Properties. . . . . .
. . . . . .. .
.5
D.
Confirmation of Schiffer's Plan. . . .
. . . . . . .
.7
E.
Negotiation and Submission of New Plan
. . . . . . .
.. 7
F.
Summary of Business Operations . . . .
. . . . . . .
:8
G.
Principal Litigation During.Chapter 11
Proceedings.
.8.
.
1. Requests for Relief From Stay. . .
. . . . . . .
.3
. 14
2. EquiNational Aspen Associates. . .
. . . . . . .
.9
.
3. James R. McDade Contract Rejection
. . . . . . .
.9
H.
Secured Claims Acquired by Commerce. .
. . . . . . .
10
III. ANALYSIS OF DEBTORS' PROPERTIES. . . . . . . . . . 13
A. Description of Properties
to
be
Sold
Under
Plan
and
Opinion of Their Value, by
Parcel.
.
..
.
.
.
.
. .
. 13'
1.
Continental Inn . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 14
2.
Paas House . . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 14
3.
Chase Duplex . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 14
4.
Chase Lots . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 14
5.
Robinson Parcel . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 15
6.
Towneplace . . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. 15
7.
Aspen Inn . . . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 15
8.
Aspen Inn Apartments,
Units
21,
22,
23,
31,
32
and 33 . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
15
- 9.
Aspen Inn Apartments,
Unit
1 -C
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 15
10.
Blue Spruce . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 16
11.
Aspen Inn parking lot.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 16
• 12.
Chalets East and West .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 16
13.
700 South Galena . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 16
14.
Summit Place . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 16.
15.
Holiday House. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 16
16.
Minedumps . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 16
17.
Snowchase A. . . . . .
.
16
18.
Snowchase B.
.
17
19.
Koch Lumber Parcel
17
20.
Barbee A . . . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
17
21.
Barbee B . . . . . . .
.
.
. .
.
17'
(i)
IV.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
The S,7-le Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..29
1. Estimated value of claim release 30
2. Other consideration to be given by Commerce to
the Estate . . . . . . 32
3. Estimate of the effective sales price under the
Plan . . . . . . . . 33
Conditions Precedent to Closing. 33
Other Funds Available for Distribution . . . . . . 34
Distribution to Creditors Under the Plan . . . 35,
1. Secured cl aims . 3'5'
2. Administrative Priority Claims 39
a. Attorneys' fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
b. Accountants' fees . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 40
c. Other professional persons. . . 40
d. Other administrative claims 40
3. Other Priority Claims. . . 40
a. Wages . . . . . . . . 41.
b.-Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
c. Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4. General Unsecured Claims . . . . . . . . . 41
a. Aspen Hotel Management, Inc.. ... . . . . . . 41
b. Estimate of unsecured claims; treatment of
disputed, contingent, unliquidated, and
unscheduled claims. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 42
5. Summary of Distribution to Creditors . . . . . . 44
Distribution to the Debtors Under the Plan . . . . . 45
Consolidation of the Debtors' Estates. . . . . . 45
V. APPROVAL OF THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A. Effect of the Absolute Priority Rule on Confirmation. 46
B. Voting By Claim Holders. . . . . . . . 47
(ii)
22. Top of Mill. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
17
23. Aspen Mountain Mining Claims . . .
. .
17
24. Aspen. Meadows. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
17
25. Summary of Mollica Valuations.
. . . . . .
1�
B.
Alternative Analysis of Value of Hotel
Site as an
Assemblage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
1.9
C.
Limitations on Opinions of Value as
Accurate
Representations of Fair Market Value . .
. . . . . .
21
D.
Summary of Liens Against Properties. . .
. . . . . .
23-
THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
2.9
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
The S,7-le Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..29
1. Estimated value of claim release 30
2. Other consideration to be given by Commerce to
the Estate . . . . . . 32
3. Estimate of the effective sales price under the
Plan . . . . . . . . 33
Conditions Precedent to Closing. 33
Other Funds Available for Distribution . . . . . . 34
Distribution to Creditors Under the Plan . . . 35,
1. Secured cl aims . 3'5'
2. Administrative Priority Claims 39
a. Attorneys' fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
b. Accountants' fees . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 40
c. Other professional persons. . . 40
d. Other administrative claims 40
3. Other Priority Claims. . . 40
a. Wages . . . . . . . . 41.
b.-Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
c. Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4. General Unsecured Claims . . . . . . . . . 41
a. Aspen Hotel Management, Inc.. ... . . . . . . 41
b. Estimate of unsecured claims; treatment of
disputed, contingent, unliquidated, and
unscheduled claims. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 42
5. Summary of Distribution to Creditors . . . . . . 44
Distribution to the Debtors Under the Plan . . . . . 45
Consolidation of the Debtors' Estates. . . . . . 45
V. APPROVAL OF THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A. Effect of the Absolute Priority Rule on Confirmation. 46
B. Voting By Claim Holders. . . . . . . . 47
(ii)
4
In the early 1970's the City of Aspen and Pitkin County
underwent a significant revision in the approach to the regulations
of land use and development. Both the City and the County revised
their respective zoning codes and maps, adop e very rigoro bdi
vision regulations, and sought t --control growth by the implemen
tion of Growth Management Plans. ; In 1975 the City of Aspen adopted a
evised zoning map wcfi; wfien taken together with the revised zoning,
code, Baas inte�,ided to facilitate the upgrading of existing touri :sty
accommodations, and the development of new first class accommoda
tions, in the vicinity of the base of Aspen Mountain. /The new zoning
co a an map m. e -most zf the l oslges_a -n a ommodations out-
side of that general area nonconforming and, when examined carefully,
it is clear that the intention was to abate those non - conforming uses
and replace them with new facilities in the redefined tourist zone.
At that time Hans and June Cantrup owned the Continental
Inn and Aspen Inn, both of- which -zer located in that tourist zones
he base of_As*_ Mo -aJn. 'Having followed the .acts the City and
County and having studied the intricacies and complexities of the new
land use regulations, Mr. Cantrup perceived an opportunity to create
an assembly for the development of a major world class hotel which
would involve the demolition and reconstruction of most of his exist=
iufacilities as well_ a-s_th.e__.acquis.ition _ of additional properties "
aeent thereto. Mr. Cantrup believed that if he could acquire non-
conforming properties, remove the nonconforming use and transfer it
to the conforming (tourist) zone, while at the same time creating
necessary employee housing, -he could accomplish his goal while satis-
fying the needs and desires of the City with respect to new and
upgraded tourist accommodations as well as employee housing:.
Believing that he was acting in conformity with the expressed goals
of the City, Mr. Cantrup also believed that his objectives would be
embraced and indeed facilitated by the City. Thus, he undertook an
aggressive campaign to acquire all of the properties necessary to
support his plan.
During this period of time real estate prices in Aspen were
rapidly increasing. Lenders were eager to make loans to qualified
borrowers. The Debtors took advantage of the opportunities presented
and through highly leveraged moves were able to .aggregate sufficient
property to become the largest landowners in Aspen.
In 1978 Mr. Cantrup obtained approval to expand the exist-
ing Aspen Inn as the first phase in his Master Plan and obtained a
construction loan from IntraWest Bank of Denver in the amount of
$4,000,000. Initially, construction proceeded in accordance with
plans which had-b rove u.ni.t
additi.an_j However, after acquiring the adjacent Blue Spruce Lode
Mr. Cantrup decided to change the configuration so as to accommodate
an additional 35 units for a total of 71. J His int the was to demo -fish
Ifi—e-15 units aE-E ie-Mue Sprun -lo3ge hat the additional 35: units
would come within the purview of the reconstruction exemption to the
Growth Management Plan. However, the City took the position that the
change in configuration constituted a substantial deviation from the
original Growth Management Plan application for the initial 36 units,
as a consequence of whicb_be 1978 Growth Management Plan Application
woul��iav_e -t.o Vie- amended so a os as additional
Although the application was processed in accordance with the
requirements of the City, when presented in final form the amendment
was denie 1--a -ad a Stop �p�k Order issued in January_ of 1981.x- At --thaa
i�me although the full $4,000,000 con is ruction loan had been funded,
the structure -was only between 50 and 70% complete.
During that same time frame the Debtors had also obtained a
construction loan from IntraWest Bank of Denver to build the
Prospector Lodge. That development consisted of the demolition and
reconstruction of 20 lodge units in downtown Aspen. For various rea-
sons there were numerous construction delays and other problems which
finally resulted in Mr. Cantrup's surrendering the project to
IntraWest, which retained an outside contractor to complete it. That
project also involved the funding of a $4,000,000 construction loan
for a facility which could not be completed while under Cantr up' s
control.
A third project under construction during the same period
was a fourplex known as the Summit Place or 750 South Mill Project.
The project involved a $1,000,000 construction loan originated by
E.V. Chilson and Company and subsequently held by Heritage Savings &
Loan. For various reasons, that project was less than fifty percent
completed although over $800,000 was funded on the loan.
During the same time frame interest rates were steadily
rising and real estate prices in Aspen were steadily declining. In
an effort to find a short term solution to their problems, the
Debtors borrowed heavily to meet debt service. Many of those interim
loans were of very short duration with very high interest rates,. and
many of the lenders' rates were tied to prime. As the prime rate
increased, Mr. Cantrup became increasingly unable to meet his current
obligations and continued to pledge available equity in his existing_
.pr.- o.p.er_ties for_additional borrowing to meet debt-.s.Qrvice. 1 Those
acute financial problems were exacerbated by the above- desscri-5ed cor..:-
struction problems and delays and most acutely by the stopping of
construction by the City of Aspen on the _A_ spen Inn expansion /---I-n-
addttiori o the ongoing problems relative to rising interest -rates
-2-
and decreasing property values, the construction leans increased nis
debt by $9,000 ",000 without generating any additional income to ser-
eice that debt.
Recognizing the severity of the problem, IntraWest Bank of
Denver agreed in November 1981 to increase the Debtors' credit line
from 55400,000 to $8,000,000 in order�to consolidate debt, provided
that the Debtors would agree to a plan for the liquidation of their
assets to reduce debt. Accordingly, the Debtors agreed on a plan for
disposal of certain of their properties, and shortly thereafter sold
both the Woodsi:one Inn and Wildwood Inn. . However, the forced sales
did not produce sufficient revenue to make a serious difference. As
the market conditions deteriorated, so did the Debtors' chances for
solution of their problems.
In a final effort to stabilize their finances, the Debtors
undertook an intensive effort to sell their major holding, the asseze-
bly which had been created for thp_purpos ilding a major hotel
at the base of ,;,Aspen Mountain. In October 1982., "y entered into an
agreement to convey all of thei'�'-pzDpe_r_ti_es t.o -d point venture for
the purpose of . refinance and development. That transaction was never
consummated.
During October 1982, Mr. Cantrup also began discussions
with other groups regarding, proposals to sell either the entire hotel
site or just the Continental Inn, as well as the Aspen Meadows, which
had been the subject of sale discussions since 1981. As these dis-
cussions proceeded, during the period of December 1982 to March 1983
twenty -seven foreclosure sales of the Debtors' real property were
held. The Debtors' rights to redeem those properties began to expire
in March 1983, and redemption rights as to a key property, the
Continental Inn, were set to expire on March 23, 1983. On March 18,
1983, negotiations for the sale of the Debtors' properties broke
down. On that date, IntraWest Bank. of Denver notified the Debtors
that it would file an involuntary bankruptcy petition against the
Debtors if they did not file a voluntary petition on or before
March 22, 1983. On March 22, an involuntary petition under
• Chapter 11 was filed. Approximately one hour later, the Debtors
filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition initiating the present bank-
ruptcy proceedings, and the involuntary petition subsequently was
withdrawn.
-3-
q
•
MlINIZial uu : - ; • whis Itely v -► ; ► .: : ';• ►.
On March 29, 1983, IntraWest Bank of Denver moved the
Bankruptcy Court to appoint a trustee to operate the Debtors'
business and manage their property. Numerous creditors joined in the
motion. The Debtors offered to give complete control over the man-
agement of their estate to Spencer F. Schiffer, an attorney who pre-
viously had represented the Debtors. I.-, ,view of the complexity of
the Debtors' financial affairs and Schiffer's familiarity with those
affairs, a consensus of creditors supported the. turnover of control
to Schiffer. An;Operating Order appointing Schiffer Chief Executive
Officer for the: ! Debtors' estate was entered on May 4, 1983, and, by
the "terms of tire„ Order, Schiffer was vested with the rights, powers,
and duties of a debtor in- possession.
Following his appointment as ; Chief Executive Officer,
Schiffer immediately sought a post- petition loan to be used to redeem
the properties of the Debtors which had been sold at foreclosure sale
prior to the filing of the Debtors' Chapter 11 petition. Upon reach-
ing agreement regarding such a loan with Commerce, Schiffer sought
court approval two enter into the loan. The Court authorized the
Estate to enter into the loan, by Order dated May 18, 1983, and on
May 21, 1983, the Estate closed the loan and redeemed various proper-
ties by paying $7,451,000 in pre - petition secured claims.
Pursuant to the Court's Order, the post- petition loan with
Commerce was secured by the lien positions of the creditors whose
claims were satisfied with the loan proceeds. Commerce also was
secured by a junior lien covering all properties in the Estate, and
was granted an administrative priority claim under 11 U.S.C.
S 364(c) (1) .
In addition to the redemption loan, Commerce also agreed to
give the Estate a line of credit up to $200,000, to be used for oper-
ational and administrative expenses of the Estate. The line of
credit was also secured with a junior lien and given an administra-
tive priority. The Estate has drawn against the line of credit to
the $200,000 ceiling.
Both the redemption loan and the line of credit became due
in full on May 21, 1984. These obligations have not been satisfied,
and are now in default.
-4-
a .
i \ \0 9_.1
For several weeks prior to the filing of the .Chapter 11
petition, the bebtors had been negotiating with Delphinance
Development Company, a multi - national company with a U.S. base in
Dallas, Texas, for the sale of the hotel site assemblage, Spar and
Top of Mill, a,portion of the Barbee property, and the Koch property
for a purchase price of $26,000,000 plus certain carried interests
based upon profits from development. The proposal had several con-
tingencies among: which were receipt of zoning approvals for a certain
number of units. in the Spar /Top of Mill parcel and a hotel convention
center with a minimum of 4U0 condominium hotel rooms and 160 condo-
minium suites; the acquisition of.the Mountain Chalet, a parcel com-
plementary to the assemblage which is owned by d third party, within
the proposed purchase price; and a loan commitment to finance the
purchase. On.:or about March 23, 1983, a group represented by Alan R.
Novak and Associates indicated that it was interested in purchasing
the properties being discussed with Delphinance, on terms more favor-
able to the Estate. Active negotiations with both Delphinance and
Novak continued until April 7, 1983, on which date the Debtors signed
a Memorandum of Intent to sell the above-mentioned properties to
Alan R. Novak and Associates and American Century Corporation for the
sum of $31,000,000 and other consideration in the form of carried
interests. The, bebtors then notified creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 363(b) of their intent to sell the properties in accordance with
the Memorandum of Intent. Numerous creditors requested a hearing on
the notice. Following his appointment 'as Chief Executive Officer,
Schiffer withdrew the notice, preferring to submit any proposed sale
to creditors only after all material terms of such sale had been
negotiated.
Upon hi.:s appointment as Chief Executive Officer, Schiffer
began approaching potential lenders in regard to the refinancing of
properties sold at foreclosure sale. It was the legal opinion.of
Schiffer's counsel that redemption of properties from foreclosure
sale should occur on or before May 21, 1983. Commerce Savings and
Loan Association of Angleton, Texas ( "Commerce "), which is owned by
American Century Corporation, a party to the Memorandum of Intent,
expressed a willingness to loan funds to redeem the properties. The
only parties other than Commerce which would even contemplate a loan
to the Estate at the time were Delphinance and Interfirst Bank of
Dallas. Af ter reviewing the situation Delphinance indicated an
unwillingness either to make a loan or to further consider the possi-
bility of acquiring any or all of the properties of the Estate.
Interfirst at first indicated a total unwillingness to loan any funds
to the Estate, ,but after careful reconsideration tentatively
committed to make a loan sufficient to redeem the Continental Inn.
-5-
On May 20, 1981, _ Interfirst determined not to make such a loan and
-the loan with Commerce was closed on May 21, 1983.
Despite the acquisition of key'lien positions by a lender
associated with American, Century Corpora ion, Schiffer informed that
prospective purchaser that he would continue to solicit offers for
the purchase of any or all of the Estate's properties unless and
until an agreement satisfactory to the Estate was executed. Schiffer
remained in communication with Delphinance until August 9, 1983, on
which date the Estate received a letter stating that the Board'of
Directors of the. ' parent company, Archirodon Group, decided to termi-
nate further interest in acquiring the Aspen property based upon its
caref ul consideration of the ". magnitude of the investment
versus the question of zoning approvals. ." In addition to the
continuing discus' sions with Delphinance, Schiffer solicited offers
from individuals or entities which had previously expressed interest
.in the properties such as the Aspen Skiing Company, Donald Trump,
7heBodini (American erties, Inc.) #, and Bruce Ledbetter and -Eric Geis ere presenting
P keys (Hatt Hotel Chain) . He also mgt- w�th�r�s unicated
with numerous - other p sro pe�t�:v urchasers of the hotel site or
Meadows properties.
In mid -May, 1983, the group associated with Novak offered
to purchase the,.Aspen Meadows as well a= the hotel site assemblage..
In mid -June, 1983, an outline for the sale of the assemblage, the
Aspen Meadows, and most of the other properties of the Estate, was
presented by Schiffer to the Court and creditors at a status
conference. However, certain unresolved contingencies resulted in an
apparent stalemate in early July.
The need for a reasonably prompt sale was dictated by the
interest accrual: on secured claims, the inability of the Estate to
service secured debt from current income, and the pressure from
secured creditors, attempting- to- res-ume- -for-aclo -s-u- -e -sales of th-e how
_"L =-proper- -t- i-es_-J The greatest barrier to a sale was the insistence,
both by the Novak group and other potential purchasers, that any sale
be made contingent on development approvals from the City of Aspen.
hose evelopment approval s-aY� omplex and - obtaining the app oroVals
could require a period of time which would be unacceptable in the
context of the Chapter 11 proceedings. Moreover, the lack of cer-
tainty that approvals could be obtained as required by a prospective
purchaser would create a high degree of risk that a proposed sale
could not be consummated. The problem involving development approv-
als finally was : esolved after Commerce acquired the claims of the
two major pre- peL -ition creditors, IntraWest Bank of Denver/ Interf irst
Bank of Dallas, and Empire Savings and Loan Association. - The Novak
group subsequently agreed to remove development approvals as a
=71:
contingency to the proposed sale without discounting the proposed
sale price. This apparently resulted from the acquisition of the
Intrawest and Empire loans at some disccunt, permitting the Novak
group to absorb the risk of development approvals without reducing
the proceeds of sale to be distributed to other creditors.
Negotiations with the Novak group were concluded by
Schiffer on September 30, 1983, on which date the Estate, acting
through Schiffer, and Commerce entered into a Definitive Agreement
for the Purchase and Sale of Real Property ( "the Sale Agreement ").
The Debtors opposed the sale negotiated by Schiffer on behalf of the
Estate.
The Sale Agreement, as subsequently amended, formed the
basis for a Plan of Reorganization filed iby Schiffer. Schiffer's
Plan was transmitted to creditors- orr -44ar_ch 16, 1984, t9s3ethe.r with -a
disc osure ststem -ent and __ballot; Objections to Schiffer's Plan were
filed by the Debtors, the _
Pitkin County Treasurer, Thomas J. Kerwin,
and K.C.B. Restaurants, Ltd. At the confirmation hearing held on
April 12 and 13,-1984, the objections filed by the Pitkin County
Treasurer and K.C.B. Restaurants, Ltd. were withdrawn. On April 16,
1984, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed Schiffer's Plan.
The Debtors and Mr. Kerwin appealed the order of confirma-
tion to the United States District Court. On July 3, 1984, the
District Court reversed the confirmation order, holding that the
Operating Order appointing Schiffer as Chief Executive Officer could
not conf er on Schiff er the power to f ile a plan. The case was
remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. Both
Schiffer and Mr. Kerwin have appealed the ,District Court's order to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The
appeals currently are pending in that court.
Following reversal of the order confirming Schiffer's Plan,
negotiations were held involving the Debtors, Schiffer, Commerce, and
the Unsecured Creditors' Committee. On July 9, 1984, an agreement
was negotiated which received tentative approval by the .Debtors,
Commerce, and counsel for the. Committee. The agreement provided for
additional cash to be paid by Commerce for the Estate's properties,
and retention of certain properties by the Estate which formerly were
to have been conveyed to Commerce. In a&lition, the agreement pro-
vided for the Debtors to receive. cash and certain property options.
A detailed summary of the consideration to be received and
distributed under the Plan is set forth in Section IV, infra.
-7-
i
Draft. copies of an amended Sale Agreement and a new plan
were circulated among the Debtors, Coi nerce, and members of the.
Committee. On F,ugust 8, 1984, the Committee formally met to discuss
the revised sale'proposal,'and voted to endorse the new plan incorpo-
rating the proposal, by a vote of six to three, with one abstention.
On August 29, 1.984, the Plan, signed by the Debtors, Commerce, and
the Chairman of 'the Committee, was f iled with the Bankruptcy Court.
The Estate currently operates twelve properties with a
total of 398 rental units; of this number, 345 are short term rental
units and 53 are' long term rental units. The Estate also operates
one restaurant: and maintains several banquet and conference
facilities. Since the filing of the bankruptcy, the Estate has sur-
rendered an additional 66 rental units co secured creditors.
Total expenses from March 23, 1983 through July 31, 1984
were $4,228,351. This figure includes all direct operating costs as
well as administrative expenses of the Estate (lawyers, accountants,
etc.) paid or accrued during that period. -However, the figure
excludes interest accrual on secured debt and depreciation. Total
income during that same period was $4,844,637. Accrued but unpaid
interest is estimated to be approximately $10,200,168 for that
period. Accrued. depreciation is estimated to be $1,136,167 for that
period.
1. ReQuests for Relief From stay. Since the commencement
of bankruptcy pr6ceedings approximately twenty requests for relief
from the automatic stay have been filed by secured creditors seeking
the right to initiate or resume foreclosure proceedings against prop-
erty securing those creditors' claims. Schiffer has resisted any
such requests involving properties within the hotel.site assemblage
or involving Aspen Meadows. With respect to other properties, which
appeared to have-little or no value in excess of secured claims,
Schiffer consented to relief from stay. These properties include the
Alpina Haus, the Cortina Lodge, the Prospector Lodge, the Sabbatini
parcel, the Hensley House, the Swiss Chalet, the Paradise Theater,
the Highlands House, and the Nugget Lodge. The passage of these
properties from the Estate to creditors has resulted in a decrease of
secured claims in the approximate amount of $7,960,000. and an equiva-
lent decrease in the value of the Estate's real property.
As of the present date, the Estate has retained title to
all properties ci?vered by the Sale Agreement. However, an order has
been entered mod fying the stay t0 permit Burr arid--Marjorie Randles
to :les ommence foreclosure proceedings against the Continental Inn on or
afr November 1., 1984, if a plan has not been confirmed or if the
C have not otherwise been adequatel protected by that date..
Requests for re ief rom sway involving the Blue , n
Inn parking lot, the Chalet East and the Chalet West currently are
pending in the Bankruptcy Court.
2. Ez;INational Aspen Associates. In October, 1982, the
Debtors purportedly entered into a partnership with EquiNational
Aspen Associates. (EAA) whereby the Debtors would have transferred
their properties. to the partnership, the properties would have been
developed by the. partnership, and the Debtors would have retained a
carried interest in the developed properties. The Debtors purported
to secure their:, obligation to convey their properties with a Deed of
Trust to EAA. The Debtors did not convey their properties to the
partnership, and EAA claimed $5,000,000 damages under a liquidated
damages provision, purportedly secured-by the Deed of Trust. In the
bankruptcy proceedings, EAA filed a complaint for a declaratory judg-
ment declaring it to be the holder of a $5,000,000 secured claim, and
for relief from stay. On September 27- 1983, the Bankruptcy Court
ruled that the liquidated damages provision and the Deed of Trust had
lapsed by their own terms and dismissed EAA's complaint. EAA
appealed to the U. S. District Court, which reversed the Bankruptcy
Court on February 8, 1984 and remanded the case for further
proceedings. On; June 1, 1984, EquiNational assigned its claim to
Commerce for the sum of. $1,250,000. The claim has been added to a
waiver of claims, discussed in Section IV. A. infra,, and currently is
not the subject of litigation due to the pending claim waiver.
3. Jam,-es R. McDade Contract Rejection. In 1973, Hans
Cantrup leased nightclub and restaurant space located at the Aspen
Inn to James R. McDade, for a period running to October 31, 1987,
with an option to renew for an additional fifteen years. McDade
sublet the restaurant space to H & C Corporation. In 1979, McDade
sold the nightclub leasehold to Cantrup, who then demolished the
,space in connection with a construction project at the Aspen Inn. In
1980, Cantrup purported to convey ownership of the restaurant space
to McDade. Cantrup also agreed to expand the restaurant space, con -
dominiumize it, and convey condominium title to McDade. Schiffer
contended that the restaurant sublease was assigned to Cantrup in
1982, which was disputed by McDade. In the bankruptcy proceedings,
Schiffer requested authorization under 11 U.S.C. 5365 to reject the
agreement for sale of the restaurant space, and the sublease. McDade
did not oppose the rejection of these agreements, but claimed that he
was a 'purchaser in possession of the restaurant space who was enti-
tled to have title conveyed to him pursuant to 5 365(i) On April 9,
1984, McDade assigned his contractual interests' to Commerce for the
sum of $1,500,000. Since these interests will merge with title to
CRI:
I
•
the underlying -real property if title is conveyed to Commerce -as
contemplated by ;the Plan, no litigation currently is pending on this
matter.
H. B • . R •D CLAIMS ACQUIRED By C OMM
Commerce, which is both the prospective purchaser of the
Debtors' properties and the Estate's post- petition lender, has become
the largest creditor in the Debtors' bankruptcy proceedings. In May,
1983, Commerce loaned money to the Estate to redeem properties sold
at foreclosure sale, and acquired the lied positions of the creditors
paid through redemption. Since that time, Commerce has acquired
other, lien positions through direct assignment by pre - petition
creditors. The',iollowing is a summary of the lien positions which
have been acquired by Commerce:
Pre - petition
Creditor
Secured Property
Pre- petition
Balance
Jonathan Bulkley
2nd lien'on Chase
307,473.00
and 3rd .lien on' Blue
Spruce
Jonathan Bulkley,
1st lien on
330,891.00
Bertram Kaufman;:; and
Snowchase B (Top
Allen Investment & Realty Co.
of Mill)
Cambridge Savings and Loan
lst lien•;on Unit
159,887.00
Assoc. of Cambridge, Ohio
22, Aspen Inn
Apts.
Colonial Investment Corp.
1st lien on Chase
305,214.00
Duplex
Design Group West, Inc.
'Empire Savings & Loan Assn.
Employees Deferred Profit
Sharing Trust of Chamberlain
Real Estate, Troy, Michigan
Farmers and Merchants Bank
of Colby, Kansas
Judgment lien -- 13,586.00
1st lien on 5,6471,118.88
portions of Aspen
Meadows, 2nd on other
portions
2nd lien on
Chalet East
1st lien on Unit
33, Aspen Inn Apts.
-10-
141,262.00
159,887.00
Pre- petition
Creditor
Secured pro,gerty
First Nat. Bank of Aspen
2nd lien on Paas
House
First Nat. Bank of Aspen
3rd lien on Paas
House
Heritage Savings"Assoc. of
1st and 2nd liens
Hays, Kansas
on Summit Place
Hill Country Savings and
1st lien on Unit
Loan Assoc.
23, Aspen Inn Apts.
Hill Country Sa.vIngs and
1st lien'on Unit
Loan Assoc.
32, Aspen Inn Apts.
Illinois /Service Federal
1st lien .on Unit
Savings and Loan Assoc.
31, Asperi Inn Apts.
IntraWest Bank of Denver
1st on Aspen Inn
2nd on Aspen Inn
Apartments (6 units)
IntraWest Bank of Denver
Aspen Inn
deficiency judgment
lien
IntraWest Bank of Denver
Blanket lien on
Chase Lots, Robinson
Parcel, Blue Spruce,
Snowchase A,
Snowchase B, Spar,
Barbee A, Barbee B,
700 Galena, 925
Durant, Aspen Mt.
Mining Claims, Mine
•
Dumps, Summit Place,
Koch Parcel
IntraWest Bank of Denver
Pre - petition
Balance
234,939.00
183,470.00
805,551.00
159,887.00
159,887.00
159,887.00
3,420,120.54
1,462,897.39
5,493,996.29
Prospector Lodge 1,450,740.00
deficiency (cross-
collateralized with
properties covered by
IntraWest blanket
lien)
-11-
Pre - petition Pre- petition
Creditor secured Property Balance
Lester Luhnow
2nd lien�on
663,402.00
-- Minedumps
Pamela F. McPherson
1st lien on
217,938.00
Snowchase A
Northwestern Savings and
1st lien on
829,947.00
Loan Assoc. of Traverse
Holiday House
City, Michigan
Peoples Savings. Bank of
1st lien.on
159,887.00
New Britain
Unit 21, Aspen
Inn Apts:,
Platte Valley Federai. Savings
lst lien on Paas
1430,914.00
and Loan Assoc.
House
Platte Valley Federal Savings
1st lien on
442,776.00
and Loan Assoc.
Townepl ace
Jerry Powell
1st lien on Blue
333,912.00
Spruce
Powers Products Company
Judgment lien
13,709.00
Prospector Lodge Partnership
1st lien on
721,057.20
Barbee B
Prospector Lodge Partnership
Barbee B
383,730.19
deficiency Judgment
-
lien
Rocky Mt. Equity and
3rd lien on Chase
1820,505.00
Mortgage Co.
Lots and 2nd lien
on Snowchase B
Roland International, Inc.
3rd lien on
1,000.00
Chalet East
Roland International, Inc.
Unsecured judgment
49,330.13
John B. Torinus, et al.
1st lien on
281,652.00
Unit 1 -C, Aspen Inn
Apts.
-12-
Pre - petition
Creditor
John B. Torinus, et al.
Wells Fargo Realty
Advisors, Inc.
.+s
Unsecured deficiency
1st lien<on
Continental Inn
Secured:
Unsecured:
Pre - petition
Balance
468,433.00
4,493,205.00
29,465,328.49
509,813.31
Commerce also; has acquired the cla-.m of Equinational Aspen
Associates, which is. disputed by the Estate, having a pre - petition
balance of $5,;000,000 and secured by all of the Estate's real
property. Because of the dispute regarding; the validity of this
claim, it has not been added to the total balance of secured claims
noted above. ;:Commerce also has acquired the unsecured claim of
James R. McDade, - .filed in the amount of $15,000 ",00`0 and disputed in
large part by the Estate. Because of the dispute as to the amount of
this claim, it has not been added to the total balance of unsecured
claims noted above. In addition, Commerce has loaned the Estate
approximately $200,000 under an operating line of credit authorized
by the Court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 364, which is secured by a
junior blanket lien on all property of the Estate.
...
The .Plan proposes to sell the properties owned by the
Debtors which are described below. A map indicating the location of
the properties, is attached to the Disclosure Statement as
Exhibit "A ". Opinions of value regarding each of the properties were
prepared in September, 1984 by James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc.,
and these are summarized below. Mr. Mollica is a member of the
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers ( "M.A.I. "), and main-
tains a real estate appraisal and consulting service in Aspen,
Colorado.
Mr. Mollica appraised most of the Debtors' properties for
the Debtors at various times prior to the commencement of the
Debtors' bankruptcy proceedings. In May and August 1983, Mollica &
Associates prepared opinions of value for each of the properties at
the request of Commerce, the prospective purchaser under the Plan.
The more recent opinions of value summarized below were prepared at
the request of Schiffer. The recent valuations are described by
Mollica as an addendum to the May and August 1983 valuations. The
opinions of value summarized below estimate the value of each parcel
-13-
as though it wa5.;;,separately marketed and separately developed. The
values assume, a cash or near -cash sale with no development
contingencies. The values assume marketing with an Aspen real estate
firm pursuant to .a six to ten percent rea?: estate commission and sale
within a twelve .month period. Commission: and costs of . sale have not
been deducted from the estimated values.
In his most recent valuation study, Mollica noted.that
there are "many. unanswered questions" regarding the Estate's proper-
ties, including' legal disputes and questions dealing with political
and zoning interpretations. The recent valuations differ in many
instances from-. the 1983 valuations performed by Mollica &
Associates. Mollica stated that these differences primarily are the
result of refinements in the appraiser's development assumptions
rather than changes in the Aspen real estate market. In contrast to
certain appraisals prepared earlier for the Debtors or Commerce under
various development scenarios, the most recent valuations are based
upon the apparisers' best interpretation of the highest and best use
of the properties. These valuations supercede all previous valuation
studies performed by James J. Mollica &Associates, Inc.
1. Continental Inn. The property is a hotel and restau-
rant operation located at the base of Aspen Mountain, in what
Mr. Mollica describes as Aspen's "100 percent location." The land
parcel is 42,422. ,.square feet. The hote; includes 165 rental units
plus 11 employee units. The improvements total approximately 64,116
square feet, and are described as being in fair to average repair.
Employing both an income approach and a comparison to recent market
transactions, Mollica opined a value of $6,500,000.
2. 2aaa House. The property is a 9,000 square foot lot
located adjacent to the Continental Inn. It is improved with a
single family residence containing approximately 2,366 square feet,
in poor to fair condition. The underlying zoning would permit devel-
opment of two duplex units. Mollica opined a value of $550,000.
3. Chase Dupj=. The property is a 5,892 square foot lot,
located one half block from Aspen's commercial core and the Aspen
Mountain ski slopes. It is improved with a five bedroom duplex con-
taining 2,851 square feet, in poor to fair condition. The property
is zoned for commercial and lodge units. Mollica opined a value of
$500,000.
4. Lots. The property is an unimproved lot of
12,022• square feet, located adjacent to the Chase Duplex and with
potential for development of commercial and lodge units. Mollica
opined a value of $1,000,000.
-14-
sr
5. Robinson Parcel. The property is an unimproved lot of
8,350 square feet located adjacent to the Continental Inn.
Separately developed, the property is appropriate for development of
two large. duplex units. Mollica opined a value of $550,000.
6. Towneplace. The property is a 3,120 square foot lot
located adjacent to the Chase Duplex. It. is improved with a building
containing 2,770 :square feet, used for apartment and commercial uses,
and is in fair condition. Mollica opined a value of $625,000.
7. open Inn. Together with the Aspen Inn Apartments, the
property is a lot estimated to be 72,707 square feet. It is located
adjacent to the Continental Inn and is a prime development location.
The property is: :improved with a restaurant and 24 unit lodge contain-
ing 13,175 square feet. The restaurant is in good condition, and the
lodge units are,-in poor to fair condition. Mollica opined a value in
the amount of. $1;2.00,000 for the existing lodge units and
restaurant.
The property also is the site of a 68 unit addition con-
taining 44,460 square feet of lodge units, 11,115 square feet Mollica
opined-- a—v-alue of $700,_0... n commorci area containing,
meet. j The addition variously has been estimat`e�Ic- as'�eing 54 to 80
percent complete.. Construction of the addition was halted by the
City of Aspen in.January 1982 based on alleged non - compliance with
land use approvals, and has been the subject of litigation since that
time. Assuming an ability to complete the addition with 36 units as
authorized by the City of Aspen, Mollica opined a value of
$1,800,000. In addition, Mollica attributed an additional $1,100,000
of value to what,.he describes as the "Aspen Inn complex," comprising
the Aspen Inn, the Aspen Inn Apartments, the Blue Spruce, the Aspen
Inn parking lot, the Chalet East, and the Chalet West, based on addi-
tional development potential of this larger site.
8. Aspen Inn Apartments, Units 21. 22, 23, 31, 32 and 33 .
The property is located adjacent to the Aspen Inn, and consists of
six two - bedroom units containing 930 square feet each. The units are
in average condition, while the exterior is in poor to fair
condition. The units have been condominiumized and are able to be
separately sold. Based on comparable sales, Mr. Mollica gave an
opinion of value Mollica opined a value of $780,000 for the six
units.
9. Aspen Inn Apartments, Unit 1 -C. The property is
located south of -the six unit building, and consists ,of one basement
unit containing 600 square feet. Mollica opined a value of $50,000.
-15-
10. due Spruce. The property-"is a 27,000 square foot lot
located adjacent;to the Aspen Inn. It is improved with a 33 unit
lodge and a two bedroom apartment totalling 13,600 square feet. The
improvements are described as being in, fair condition. Mollica
opined a value of $1,200,000.
11.' Alen Inn_ ,parking lot. The property is a 12,,500
square foot parcel adjacent to the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce, and
is unimproved. Mollica opined a value of $900,000.
12. valets East and West. Each Chalet is located on
6,000 square foot lots adjacent to the Aspen Inn. Each Chalet con-
tains four bedrooms and totals 1,994 square feet. Mollica opined a
value of $550,000 for each Chalet, for a total of $1,100,000.
13. !D_Q South Galena. The property is a 22,727 square
foot lot located across from the Continental Inn, and is unimproved.
Mollica opined a value of $1,000,000.
14. .Summit place. The property is an approximately
9,410 square foot lot located near the Aspen Inn. It is improved
with two partially completed units of approximately 2,100 square feet
each. One unit is approximately 85 percent complete and the second
unit is approximately 40 percent complete. In. addition, foundations
for an additional two units have been poured. Some weather damage
has occurred. Estimating the market value of two completed units
less costs of completion, marketing, and developers' profit, Mollica
opined a value of $800,000. If the third and fourth units could be
completed, Mollica opined' a value of $1,400,000, while expressing
doubts regarding this development scenario.
15. o iday House. The property is a 15,750 square foot
lot located outside the hotel site assemblage, three blocks from.
Aspen's commercial core. It is improved with a 15,000 square foot
building containing 20 rental units and six employee units, and is in
fair to average condition. Employing both an income approach and a
comparison to recent market transactions, Mollica opined a value of
$700,000.
16 Minedumps. The property is a 41,250 square.f oot lot
located outside the hotel site assemblage, but near the Aspen
Mountain ski slopes.. It is improved with 20 rental units in poor
condition. The value in the units is their location and their abil-
ity to be demolished and reconstructed. Mollica opined a value of
52,500',000.
17. Snawchase A. The property is a 12,994 square foot lot
located at the base of Aspen Mountain. It is unimproved but is zoned
OT-C
to permit development of lodge units or multi - family condominiums.
Mollica opined a value of $900,000.
18. Snowchase B. The- property- is a 13,430 square foot
lot, adjacent to Snowchase A, and is unimproved. It has development
potential similar to Snowchase A. Mollica opined a value of
$900,000.
19. Koch Lumber Parcel. The property is a 62,455 square
foot undeveloped lot, located in Aspen approximate) one -half mile
from_As.gPn Ma ni=_din and the hotel si
' _e.,�o ica opined a value of
,000.
20. bee A. The property is an approximately
31,500 square foot unimproved lot located near the Minedumps adjacent
to the Aspen Mountain ski slopes. It has development potential simi-
lar to the Snowchase parcels. Mollica opined a value of $1,500,000.
21. Barbee B. The property- is an approximately
18,000 square foot unimproved lot located adjacent to Barbee A, and
has similar development potential. )Mollica opined a value of
s1,000,000.
22. Top of Mill. The property is an unimproved parcel
comprising approximately 211,446 square f:et, located at the base of
the Aspen Mountain ski slopes in what Mollica describes as Aspen's
"100 percent location." Approximately 98,130 square feet is zoned
Conservation, the most restrictive zoning classification in Aspen,
allowing development of one single family residence with a minimum
lot area of ten-acres. Approximately 79,056 square feet is zoned
R -15, permitting. development of duplex or single - family housing.
Approximately 50,490 square feet is zoning- L-- 2- ,-- pe- r- �- imulti-
f 1y. con -ftm ni -um-o - odge-dev -elo_pmen-t. Reviewing conceptual devel-
ment approvals given by the City of Aspen to Commerce for parcels
including Top of Mill but also including parcels owned by Commerce
BPr han the estate, Mollica opined a value of $3,000,000.
23. Aspen Mountain Mining Claims. The Aspen Mountain
Mining Claims actually include Top of Mill and Spar, but refer herein
to the mining claims not included within Top of Mill and Spar. The
property is located on Aspen Mountain, above Top of Mill and Spar,
and totals approximately 135 acres. Ownership of the claims include
both surface and subsurface rights, and is equivalent to a fee simple
estate. Mollica opined a value of $550,000.
24. Aspen Meadows. The property consists of approximately
88 acres located northwest of the Aspen commercial core away from
Aspen Mountain. The property is improved with several structures,
-17-
•
but is considerably underdeveloped. Mol ica opined a value .of
$5,000,000 for the existinq _condominium- -hits and commercial ice..
In considering the additional value whiOL_shculd b_ t ibute -d the
w-aperty--dne- to- dev-elo -pment potential; Mollica. noted that the Asper:
Meadows is probably the most difficult of the Estate's properties to
value, because it has been designated a specially planned area which
lacks any definite guidelines regarding density, type of development
or size requirement. In addition, Mollica noted that development of
the property is highly sensitive from bolt :a political and community
standpoint, since for the past thirty -five years the property has
served as "the academic arena for Aspen." !Mollica considered several:
alternative development scenarios, including a "Blue Ribbon
Committee" report recommending development of up to 200 bedroom:
(including the 92 existing bedrooms) ; a residential rezoning to R -6'
or R -15, which has been contemplated by Commerce; and a residential
rezoning to R -30, which has occurred in several nearby subdivision.
areas. Analyzing these scenarios, Mollica opined a value of
$3,000,000 for the undeveloped land. The total value of the Aspen/
Meadows was_ 58,000,000 in Mollica's opinion.
25. Summary of Mollica Valuations.
Continental Inn $ 6,500,000
Paas Douse 550,000
Chase Duplex 500,000
Chase Lots 1,10.0,000
Robinson Parcel 550,000.
Towneplace 625,000
Aspen Inn (including "Aspen Inn
Complex" additional development
potential) 4,100,000
Aspen Inn Apartments (6 units) 780,000
Aspen Inn Apartments (Unit 1 -C) 50,000
Blue Spruce 11200,000
Aspen Inn parking lot 900,000
Chalets East and West 11100,000
700 South Galena
Summit Place
Holiday House
Minedumps
Snowchase A
Snowcha.se B
Koch Lumber Parcel
Barbee A
Barbee B
Top of Mill
Aspen Mt. Mining Claims
Aspen Meadows
1,000,000
800,000
700,000
2,500,000
900 ,000
900,000
550,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
3,000,000
550,000
8,000,000
Total: $39,355,000
B. ALTERNATIVE NUYSTS OF VALUE OF HOTEL SITE AS AN AESE MB ,A ,F
Several appraisers have considered whether the Debtor's
properties may have a value greater than the sum of their parts,
since many of the properties are contiguous and comprise assemblages
which may permit a large -scale hotel development.
In April 1984, Ralph F. Clark & Associates, Inc. appraised
the hotel site located at the base of Aspen Mountain at the request
of the Debtors. The appraisers made certain assumptions regarding
the value of a completed hotel on this site, and then subtracted the
estimated costs of developing that hotel, including construction
costs, financing costs, and developer's overhead and profit. The
remaining value was labelled the "land residual," which was an esti-
mate of the fair market value of the raw land in the hotel site.
Using this technique, Clark & Associates concluded that the hot 1
site included in Commerce's .- ��IL�D 3ppli��tion had a current fail
market - value- of- $40_.,Q_00,009`). The appraisers noted t at the P.U.D.
application inclides parcels not owned by the Estate, estimated an
acquisition cost ,of $1,100,000 for those parcels, and accordingly
adjusted th e v al_ue- _.- .of- --t -h a - -E s- ta- te- l�- h-at- el -s -i -t e- pro - per -- ties. - -t o
$38,900,000. contrast, Mollica's parcel -by- parcel appraisal set
-19-
0
f -or-t-h i-n the pre -cLding section estimates a total fair.. market value of
$17,955,000 f9rth- e__h9tel site propertie:34
In preparation of this disclosure statement, Schiffer asked
James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc. to comment on the appraisal of
the hotel site by Clark & Associates. rlollica noted that the Clark
appraisal assumed the ability to develop a 500 unit hotel on the
site. Mollica stated that this assumption was questionable, since
Commerce has been processing a Planned Unit Development application
with the City of Aspen and has received conceptual approval for only
447 units. However, the 500 units assumed by Clark & Associates were
smaller and, of a different configuration than the 447 units approved
by the City. Mollica also stated that the properties included in
Commerce's P.U.D. application include several parcels which are not
owned by the Estate, suggesting that a hotel which could be developed
on the Estate's properties alone would be smaller than 447 units.
Mollica also stated that the Clark appraisal ;Wade "over- optimistic"
assumptions regarding the costs of developing the hotel, employee
housing requirements, the revenues to be derived from each room, and
the expenses of operating the hotel. An adjustment of these factors
would indicate a lower value for a completed hotel, and after sub-
tracting costs of development, a lower "land residual value" would
also be indicated.
Schiffer also asked Mollica to - conduct his own analysis of
the value of the Debtors' properties as assemblages rather than as
separate parcels. Mollica concluded that the assemblage value was
less than the value of the individual parcels. Mollica stated that
this conclusion "was suprising to the appraiser q -, " bu de_ntif zed -
several factQrG whic_t� _t3�1_,usion. First, a separate
,developm net of the individual parcels could largely be agcomplished,
without the need for approvals by the City of Aspen. _/In contrast,
the arge asse Tage develzspmen� must occur through' - Growth Management
Plan and Planned Unit Development applications submitted to the City,
as has been done by Commerce. This has resulted in extensive
employee housing requirements and other requirements of the . City
which will be expensive for the developer',and which will reduce the
value of the large -scale development. Moreover, the processing of .
GMP and PUD applications increases.the time needed to develop the
large -scale project and results in a greater discount of value due to
the large holding period.
The valuation of the Estate's properties remains a matter
of substantial dispute. Mr. Cantrup, for example, maintains that the
Mollica appraisals understate the real value and that the Clark
appraisal better states the real value. The preceeding summary of
valuations is intended to describe the conclusions contained in
-20-
0
recent appraisals, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of
any of the plan proponents. I..
.
me; 015-1
u:...
Appraisals are useful for determining a range of values,
but in the final analysis they are merely opinions based upon
assumptions. In many cases, the assumptions underlying. opinions of
value are subject to so much uncertainty or conjecture that it is
necessary to examine the assumptions and all of their permutations in
order to understand what the appraisals represent. It is difficult
to present such an examination in the context of a Disclosure
Statement. However, it is possible to summarize some of the relevant
considerations underlying any analysis of the value of the Debtors'
properties.
The Debtors' properties in most cases are undeveloped or
underdeveloped, so that their value depends to a large extent on the
ability to obtain development approvals from the City of Aspen.
Assumptions regarding future development approvals are central to the
opinions of value summarized above. In order to obtain development
approvals in the City of Aspen, any development, other than single
family housing, duplex housing, and certain other exempt structures,
must not only comply with underlying zoning requirements, which at a
minimum determine density, but must zlso compete for Growth
Management Plan (GMP) allocations. Competitions are held once each
year for the lodge, -commercial, and residential categories. The
winner of each competition is entitled to the allocations available
each year, which are 39 residential units,, 35 lodge units, 10,000
square feet of commercial and office space, in CC and Cl zones, 7,000
square feet of commercial and office space in NC and SCl zones, 4,000
square feet of commercial and office space in the 0 zone, and 3,000
square feet of commercial and office space in CL and all other zone
districts. Those numbers may be revised upward or downward depending
upon many factors in any given year or any given competition. Multi-
family developments as well as any other developments involving con -
dominimization or division of ownership interests require subdivision
approval. Large projects in sensitive areas, such as the hotel site
assemblage and Aspen Meadows, are generally required to be processed
as Planned Unit Developments.
The several layers of approvals required, the complexities
inherent with respect to each, the length of time required for each,
and the uncertain political climate in Asp -gin create risk factors for
potential developers which cannot be minimized in any analysis of
value. Considerations of this nature are- exacerbated by the fact
that if all of the properties were marketed simultaneously, not only
-21-
I
i '1v
would supply and demand have an adverse''offect on prices, but the
competitive nature of the GMP process would tend to further depress
price since the risk of not being able to win allocations and thus
develop in the near future increases as the number of potential
purchasers /competitors increases.
�fie Debtors' properties represent a signif ican- rtion of
th otal developable property in Aspen.. Both the hotel siteassercr
age and Aspen Meadows are located in extremely sensitive parts of
Ke th City, and any proposed development of- either the assemblage or
Meadows will be subjected to close scrutiny and varied political
cons`,:-derations.
Political sensitivities relative: to the hotel site assem-
blage focus primarily on the fact that, the assemblage represents the
last site in Aspen particularly suited to a "world class" hotel
facility. Given the tourist economy and the obvious lack of first
class lodging facilities, any prospective purchaser and /or developer
must be aware of those sensitivities and the rigorous scrutiny any
development proposal would certainly encounter. Concomitant.with
such scrutiny are the obvious time delays and concessions to the
vagaries of local public opinion. Potential hotel operators such as
the Broadmoor and the Registry have informed the City Council that
they would require a minimum number of units as well as certain ame-
nities as a prerequisite to their consideration of entering into a
management agreement. A development proposal for part or all of the
hotel site which did not provide for those minimum requirements would
jeopardize the ultimate success of the hotel operation. Commence, as
contract purchaser of the properties, is currently processing Growth
Management Plan and Planned Unit Development applications with the
City of Aspen. Commerce's applications originally sought approval
for 480 hotel units. The City has given'a conceptual approval for
447 units. Commerce has yet to obtain preliminary or final approvals
on its PUD applications, and these approval stages could result- n
further modification of the project size. Commerce's experience to
date emphasizes the City's concern for the _type _pize and qualms of
development whi_ch._w- il_l- be__pgrmitted. ithough the result s -to date
are by no means conclusive, one could reasonably conclude that the
City's conceptual approval probably represents the maximum number of
units which would be permitted in the foreseeable future. Although
that should not affect the appraised "as is" values, it may have a
Degative effect on "speculative" development assumptions.
ily on t
number o
upon the
for all
Any valuation analysis of the As Mea ows focuses primar-
he fact that the property is virtually unzoned and that the
f units which would ultimately be,--permitted to be developed
property would depend upon the adoption of a precise plan
of the property. The Aspen Meadows Advisory Board, which was
-22-
created by -the Aspen City. Council for the purpose of reviewing and
making recommendations on all proposed plans and uses of the Asperi
Meadows property, recommended in September 1981 that any proposed
development be limited to 200 bedrooms including what is presently
existing and 5 additional single family home sites with a limitation
of 275,000 square feet for the total building mass. Any proposed
development would have to meet the needs :of the Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies, the Music Associates of Aspen, Aspen Center for
Physics, as well as the various special interest groups and
homeowners' associations which are very sensitive to any proposals
regarding the Meadows property..
Ownership of the Meadows property separate from the owner-
ship of the hotel site properties creates the prospect for two
extremely large development proposals bellig presented to the Aspen
City Council at the same time and the marketing of a relatively large
number of similar type units 'at the same time. Given ' that the devel-
opment of the hotel site properties is, and of necessity must be,
proceeding rapidly due to economic considerations, that factor might
have a negative impact on the marketability and the value of.the
Meadows property as a separate parcel.
The following is a summary of the liens held against each
of the Debtors' properties, listed in order of priority. The classi-
fications employed by the Plan are listed with each lien. Except
where noted, interest on each lien is accrued to November 1, 1984,
without regard to whether the value of the property would permit
post- petition interest accrual pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(b). In
the case of liens secured by more than one property, the liens and
their dollar values are listed immediately following the summary of
properties and lien priorities. Liens held by Commerce are noted
with the pre - petition claim holder in parentheses. The summary is
not definitive with regard to the priority of mechanics' liens, due
to uncertainties regarding the date to which such liens may "relate
back" in accordance with state law.
A -1 Commerce
A -41 Randles
Mechanics
(Wells Fargo)
liens
A -32 Commerce (EquiNational)
A -43 Garfield & Hecht
-23-
6,000,997
225r323
12,000
(estimated;
some are
disputed)
0
Baas
A -23
House
Commerce
(Platte Valley)
A -12
Commerce
(First Nat. Bank Aspen- -
loan also
secured by real estate and
equipment
which is not property of
Estate)
A -13
Commerce-
(First Nat. Bank Aspen)
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
Chase
A -2
Duplex
Commerce
(Colonial)
A -38
Colonial
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
Chase
A -39
Lots
Langenkamp
A -4
Commerce
(Bulkley -- also secured by
Blue Spruce)
A -5
Commerce
(Rocky Mt. Mortgage
also secured
by Snowchase B)
A -10
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
A -43
Garfield
& Hecht
Robinson
Parcel_
A -10
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
A -43
Garfield
& Hecht
_- Towneplace
A -24
Commerce
-
(Platte Valley)
• A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
-24-
168,704
279,317
283,986
402,4.28
190 ,584
71,733
554,190
•
Aspen
A -7
Inn
Commerce ,(IntraWest
-- excluding
parking lot)
Mechanics
liens
A -36
Kaufman /Buckley (1st on parking
lot only -- also secured by Blue
Spruce)
A -32
Commerce-
(EquiNational)
Aspen
Inn Apartments,
Units 21; 22& 23 .' 31 , 32, 33
A -19
Commerce -
(Peoples Savings - -lst
on Unit
21)
A -17
Commerce
(Cambridge Savings- -lst,.
on Unit-22)
A -22
Commerce
(Hill Country - -lst
on Unit-23
A -20
Commerce °(Illinois
/Service - -1st
on Unit
31)
A -21
Commerce
(Hill Country- -1st
on Unit
32)
A -18
Commerce
(Farmers and. Merchants-'.--
1st on Unit 33)
ti 7
Commerce
(IntraWest- -2nd on 6 units
also secured by Aspen Inn)
A -32
Commerce-(EquiNational)--all
5 units)
AEPen
Inn Apartments.
Unit 1 -C
A -15
Commerce
(Torinus)
'Blue Spruce
A -3 Commerce (Powell)
A -35 Kaufman /Bulkley -(also secured by Aspen
Inn parking lot)
A -4 Commerce (Bulkley -- also secured by
Chase Lots)
A -10 Commerce (IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency)
A -32 Commerce (EquiNational)
A -43 Garfield & Hecht
-25-
4,421,116
325,000
(estimated;
- some are
disputed)
187,647
187r647
187,647
187,647
1.87 ,647
187j,6 47
281,652
442,286
•
Chalet
A -34
East
Central
Pennsylvania Savings
A -14
Commerce
:(Chamberlain)
A -27
Commerce
(Roland Int.)
A -32
Chalet
Commerce
(EquiNational)
A -35
West
Peoples
Savings
A -32
700 South
EquiNational
A -10
Galena
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Prospector
-deficiency)
Mechanics
liens
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
A -43
Garfield
& Hecht
925 Durant
A -10
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency)
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
A -43
Garfield
& Hecht
Summit
A -25
Place
Commerce
.(Heritage Savings)
Mechanics.-liens
A -10
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency)
A -43
Garfield
& Hecht
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
Holiday
A -16
House
Commerce
(Northwestern Savings)
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
-26-
182,427
188,921
1,145
483,606
40,000
(estimated)
1,016,084
200,000
(estimated)
1,061,356
1
Minedumps
A -40
Preusch
A-32
A -6
Commerce
(Luhnow)
A -10
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Commerce (IntraWest blanket and
.Prospector deficiency)
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
A -43
Garfield
& Hecht
Snowchase
A
Commerce
(McPherson)
A -26
A -10
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Prospector def iciency)
A -32
Commerce
(EquiNational)
Snowchase
B
Commerce
(Bulkley)
A -8
A -5
Commerce
(Rocky Mt. Mortgage -- also
secured
by Chase Lots)
A -10
Commerce
(IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency)
A -32
Commerce:
(EquiNational)
Koch_ Lumber__ Parcel
A -10 Commerce (IntraWest blanket and
-27-
255,320
884,893
240,831
458,054
560,000
(approx.)
925,076
Prospector deficiency)
A-32
Commerce (EquiNational)
A -43
Garf ield & Hecht
Barbee
A -84
A
Barbee
A -10
Commerce (IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency)
A -32
Commerce (EquiNational)
Barbee
A -28
B
Commerce (Prospector Lodge
Partnership)
A -10
• Commerce (IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency
A -32
Commerce (EquiNational)
-27-
255,320
884,893
240,831
458,054
560,000
(approx.)
925,076
S
A -10
Commerce (IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency)
A -43
Garfield & Hecht
A -32
Commerce (EquiNational)
Aspen
A -10
Mt, Mining Claims
Commerce (IntraWest blanket and
Prospector deficiency)
A -32
Commerce (EquiNational)
A -43
Garfield, & Hecht
Aspen
A -37
Meadows
Aspen Instittte (lst and 2nd)
2,421,947
A -9
Commerce (Empire-2nd
7,539,880
and 1st)
A -32
Commerce (EquiNational)
A -44
Classic Realty
275,000
(estimated
& disputed)
A -42
Cargill
29,945
A -43
Garfield & Hecht
A -85
Shaffer
91,500
The balance of the liens secured by more than
one property,
together with interest accrued to November 10, 1984, are as follows:
A -4
Commerce (Bulkley)
452,207
A -5
Commerce (Rocky Mt. Mortgage)
238,039
A -36
Kaufman
919,916
A -43
Garfield & Hecht
600,000
(estimated
& -disputed)
,A -10 Commerce .(IntraWest blanket) 6,787,038
• A -10 Commerce (IntraWest /Prospector
deficiency) - 1,864,786
A -32 Commerce (EquiNational) 5,000,000
(disputed)
In addition to the liens mentioned above, the following
liens constitute encumbrances against all of the properties of the
Estate.
A -46 Hindry &,. Meyer Judgment Lien 9,354
10/20/82
.M
0
A -47
A-86
A -29
A -11
A -3 0
A-48
13
Business & Office
Systems
Contemporary Furniture
Commerce (Prospector
Lodge Partnership)
Commerce (IntraWest)
Commerce
(Powers Products)
Radio Paging of Aspen
A -31 Commerce (Design
Group West)
A -33 Commerce
IV. THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
A. THE SALE AGREEMENT
Judgment lien
1/•x/83
Judgment lien
1/17/83
Judgment lien
Judgment lien
3/3/83
Judgment lien
3/4/83
Judgment lien
3/4/83
Judgment lien
3/9/83
Post - petition
loan pursuant
to 11 U.S.C.
§ 364(c)(3)
418
52,111
441,682
1,154,637
15,590
5 s,3 G - -5
15,458
255r677,
The Def initive Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Real
Property ( "the Sale Agreement ") entered into by the Estate and
Commerce on September 30, 1983, and amended on November 22, 1983,
January 25, 1984, March- 22, 1984, April 11, 1984, May 7, 1984, and
August 27, 1984, forms the basis for the Plan of Reorganization ( "the
Plan "). A copy of the Sale Agreement, in restated form to reflect
all previous amendments, is appended to the Plan which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "B."
The Sale Agreement, as amended, provides for the payment of
$9,150,000 cash to the Estate at the time of closing. In addition,
Commerce shall release most of its claims against the Estate. As
additional . consideration, Commerce also shall agree to transfer one
lot at the Aspen Meadows to the Estate if and when subdivision
approval is obtained for that property. Th.-_ cash and other consider-
ation received by the Estate shall be applied first, to claims
secured by liens against the properties to be transferred to
Commerce; second, to claims entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C.
-29-
507; and third, to general unsecured claims. The funds paid to the
Estate will be insufficient to fully satisfy general unsecured
claims. In addition, Commerce will pay certain cash and other cor-
sideration to the Debtors. For a more detailed summary of distribu-
tion under the Plan, see Section IV.D., infr .�
In exchange for the cash payment, release of claims, and
other consideration from Commerce, the Estate will transfer to
Commerce, free and clear of all liens and other interests pursuant to
11 U.S. C. S 363(f) , the real property described in Exhibit A of the
Sale Agreement*- in addition, the Estate will transfer to Commerce
the business assets described in Paragraph 1 of the Sale Agreement.,
including improvements to the real property, personal property used
in connection with the operation of the improvements, and certain
contractual rights, water rights, licenses, and documentary.
information.
1. Estimated value of claim release. Paragraph 2(c) of
the Sale Agreement specifies certain claims which are held by
Commerce as to,! which Commerce will release the Estate at the time of
the closing. This release of claims is the largest part of the total
consideration to be received under the Sale Agreement. The following
table lists all of the secured claims included in.. the release,
employing the classifications used in the Plan. To the extent that
the value of the property securing each claim exceeds the claim bal-
ance, thereby permitting post - petition interest accrual pursuant to
11 U.S. C. § 506(b) , interest has been accrued to November 1, 1984,
which is used as a hypothetical distribution date. Where the value
of the property securing a claim is less than the pre- petition bal-
ance of the claim, the undersecured portion of the claim is listed as
unsecured. To determine whether claims are over - secured or under -
secured, reference has been made to the valuations of James J.
Mollica, M.A.I., listed in Section III.A. supra. Commerce does not
necessarily agree that the following table accurately reflects the
total amount of its secured claims, to the extent that the secured
claim balances are determined according to Mollica's valuations.
Claim number Unsecured
portion Secured portion
A -1
6,000,997
A -2
402,428
A -3
442,286
A -4
452,207
A -5
238,039
A -6
884,893
A -7
41100,000
A -8
458,054
-30-
A -9
7,539,880
A -10
8,651,.824
A -11
1,154,637
A -12
279,317
A -13
81,491
101,979
A -14
q
188,921
A -15
23:1`,652
50,000
A -16
129,947
700,000
A -17
29,887
130,000
A -18
29,887
130,000
A -19
29,887
130,000
A -20
29,887.
130,000
A -21
29,887
130,000
A -22
29,887.
130,000
A -23
168,704
A -24
554,190
A -25
5,551
800,000
A -26
240,831
A -27
1,145
A -28 -
925,076
A -29
441,682
A -30
15,590
A -31
15-,458
A -33
255,677
627,963
35,843,815
The release of the above secured claims is subject to an
exception provided by Paragraph 2(c) of the Sale Agreement. Interest
on the May 21, 1983 redemption loans and credit line (claims A -1, 2,
3, 4, 6, 8 and 33) which was accrued but unpaid as of May 7y 1984 -is
not released. This interest, which is included in the above secured
claim balances, totals $307,496. When subtracted from the secured
claim total, the secured claims released by Commerce total
$35,536,319.
Commerce also holds an unsecured claim as assignee of
Roland International in the amount of $49,330, and a second unsecured
claim as assignee of John B. Torinis, et-al., in the amount of
$468,433. These claims are included in the claim release. When
these unsecured claims are added to the undersecured portions of
secured claims, the unsecured claims of Commerce total $1,145,726.
Commerce holds two additional claims of major significance,
which also are included in the claim release. The first is the
secured claim of EquiNational Aspen Associates, filed in the amount
of $5,000,000 and acquired by Commerce at a cost of $1,250,000. The
second is the unsecured claim of James R. McDade, filed in the amount
-31-
of $15,000,000 and acquired by Commerce at a cost of $1,500,000.
Both of these claims, prior to the assignment to Commerce, were dis-
puted by the Estate and were the subject of litigation which was
unresolved at the time of the assignment.
The EquiNational claim, discussed in Section II. G. 2
tea, has been disputed in full by, the Estate. In order to produce
a conservative estimate of the claim release, no value has been
included on account of the EquiNational claim, although Commerce dof s
not concede that the claim has no value. However, to the extent that
EquiNational's claim might be adjudicated valid in whole or in part:,
the release of : this claim has value. Moreover, the claim release
makes unnecessary the litigation of the claim by the Estate, and
results in a savings of administrative expenses.
The McDade claim, discussed in Section II. G. 3,
includes a contractual obligation in -the principal amount of
$450,000, and damages stemming from the rejection of several execu-
tory contracts. While the damage portion of the claim may have some
value, it is disputed and is not included in the claim waiver in
order to produce a conservative estimate. The contractual obligation
of $450,000 has not been disputed and is included in the total of
Commerce's unsecured claims, bringing the total to $1,595,726;.
Under any alternative, all -cash sale,, Commerce would be
entitled to the satisfaction of its secured claims to the extent of
$35,552,111, and therefore these claims are included dollar -for-
dollar in an estimate of the value of the claim release.
The value of the unsecured claim release is more difficult
to estimate. Since these claims would be entitled to share .pro- re-t:a
in the anticipated distribution to the class of unsecured creditors,
the release has value. This Disclosure Statement, at
Section IV.' D. 5 infra, estimates that the Estate will distribute
approximately $1,740,000 to general unsecured claims totalling an
estimated $3,000,000, for a pro -rata distribution of 58 %. If the
unsecured claims of Commerce were added to the remaining claims,
unsecured claims would total approximately $4,600,000, the pro -rata
distribution would be 38 %, and Commerce would receive approximately
$608,000 on its unsecured claims. This. figure provides an estimate
of the value of the unsecured claim waiver.
2. .er consideration to be given by Commerce to the
Fatate. Paragraph 2(e) of the Sale Agreement provides that, as addi-
tional consideration, Commerce shall convey to the Estate one single
family homesite lot on the Aspen Meadows property, following final
approval by the Aspen City Council of Commerce's subdivision plan for
that property. Pending this conveyance, Commerce shall deliver a-
-32-
0
CJ
.promissory note in the amount of $300,000, increasing to $345,000 one
year after the._.closing of the sale to Commerce, and to $400,000 two
Years after the -closing. Commerce must, at its choice, either convey
the lot within three years of closing or pay the amount due under the
note.. The lot has an estimated value ir:. excess of $300,000, but the
value will be conservatively estimated herein at $300,000.
3. . , Estimate of_ the_ effective sales price under the PJI.an.
The aggregate of the cash, claim waivers, and property to be received
from Commerce pi:ovides an estimate of the effective sale price under
the Plan:
Cash 9,150,000
Secured claim waiver 35,536,319
Unsecured claim waiver 608,000
Meadows lot 300,000
45,594,319
In addition, Commerce has agreed to pay certain cash and
other consideration to the Debtors. See Section IV.E. sum.
IT FINKSTOR
Commerce's purchase of the Estate's properties is contin-
gent on satisfaction of two conditions set forth at Paragraphs 3 and
9 of the Sale Agreement. These conditions must be satisfied on or
before November 15, 1984, except to the extent that Commerce elects
to extend that deadline or waive the conditions.
The first condition is the entry of a court order evicting
K.C.B. Restaurants, Inc. from possession of a restaurant leasehold
space located at the Continental Inn. Schiffer believes that K.C.B.
has breached its lease agreement and that the agreement may be
terminated. K.C.B. contends that it is not in default and may not be
removed. Schiff er has initi- a-t -ed--1 ega procee rigs -t terminate the
lease and evict the tenant.
The second condition is the resolution of five pending law-
suits against the City of Aspen filed by the Debtors prior to the
initiation of bankruptcy proceedings (collectively referred to as
"the city lawsuits") . Three of the lawsuits concern actions of the
city related to a-construction project at the Aspen Inn (see
Section I,) . One lawsuit seeks to reverse a decision of- the
Aspen City Council to deny certain proposed amendments to a 1978
Growth Management Plan ( "GMP ") regarding the.Aspen Inn. A second
lawsuit seeks to reverse -the Aspen Director of Planning Is decision to
rescind a 1982 GMP allocation with respect to the Aspen Inn. A third
lawsuit seeks to cancel a stop work order issued by th-e'Aspen
-33-
Building Inspector which shut down the Aspen Inn construction
project. Schiffer has negotiated a settlement of the lawsuits which
satisfies this .condition, and is seeking Court approval of the
settlement. The settlement provides for'; the dismissal of all claims
of the Debtors, dismissal of a- counterclaim by the City seeking to
void the Debtors' 1978 GMP allocation of ,36 lodge units, verification
by the City that. the Debtors have 275 existing lodge units in the
hotel site, and ,cancellation of a parking lot agreement involving the
Woodstone Inn that inhibits development of the Chase Lots. The set-
tlement involves no cash payments either by or to the Estate. The
settlement resolves several conditions in. the Sale Agreement. The
fourth lawsuit :challenges the City's zoning classification of the
Koch Lumber parcel. The fifth lawsuit challenges the "City!s zoning
classif icationof the Aspen Meadows. These lawsuits are to be dis-
missed by the Estate. Schiffer is seeking court authorization for
the dismissals.
A third condition requires that the Plan be confirmed by
final order of the Bankruptcy Court.
A fourth condition requires the Estate to assume or reject
various unexpired leases and executory contracts listed on Exhibit D
to the Agreement. All of the leases and contracts to be assumed
involve the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. Counsel for the
Institute has :-reformed the Estate that the leases and contracts may
be assumed and.:.assigned to Commerce, and that there is no cure
required. The leases and contracts to be rejected include a lease
with K.C.B. Restaurants, discussed above in connection with
Paragraph 9. A parking space agreement with the Woodstone Inn
Association, Inc. is the remaining agreement to be rejected. This
agreement will be resolved at no cost to the Estate upon approval of
the pending settlement agreement with the City of Aspen discussed
above in connection with Paragraph 9.
All property held by the Estate shall be distributed pursu-
ant to the Plan, including proceeds realized from the sale to
Commerce, but also including other assets not involved in the sale.
The Estate has retained funds from the operation of its lodging
facilities, which it is estimated will total approximately $425,000
at the time of the sale. At the sale closing, the Estate also will
be entitled to a refund or credit for approximately $65,800 in util-
ity deposits.
. The Estate also will retain real property located at
925 Durant, Aspen, Colorado. The property is an unimproved lot
12,000 square feet in size. James J. Mollica, M.A.I., has given an
-34-
�J
E
opinion of value for this, property in the amount of $450,000. Net,
proceeds of liquidation are estimated a44 t
When the assets listed above are added to the sale proceeds
of $9,1501,000 and the Aspen Meadows lot valued at $300,000, there is
approximately $10,340,800 available for distribution to the claims
not included in Commerce's claim release.
The Plan contemplates an Order of the Bankruptcy Court
authorizing a sale of real and personal = property free and clear of
liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. S 363(f). When title to the property
passes to Commerce, Commerce will -del iver -t-o -the Es -torte the sum of
Vr�op"6`ffy-tax6s 150,000, subject .�s� osing adjustments including satissfa-ction --F
prorated to the date of closing, credit for accrued
Lalicable. unpaid wages, utility charges, prepaid rents and deposits, and
of one -half of the City of As n real estate transfer tax, if
axes are estimate to o a , ie
date of c sing. The Estate disputes the applicability of real
estate transfer taxes to this transaction.
The second major closing adjustment concerns the May 1983
loan from Commerce to the Estate, used o redeem properties from
foreclosure sale and for operating expenses (see Section II. B.
supra) . Commerce has agreed to waive the principal balance and
interest reserve, a total amount of $8,000,000, together with inter-
est accrued on the loan since May 7, 1984. However, interest on the.
loan in excess of the interest reserve and accrued prior to May 6
1984 totals $307,496. This obligation has not been waived and is
entitled to administrative priority. ThiF, obligation shall be cred-
ited against the.purchase price at the closing.
Other closing adjustments are believed to be relatively
insubstantial. However, the Estate is also contractually obligated
to pay up to $50,000 for a title insurance policy. Total closing
adjustments and costs therefore are estimated to total $977,496.
1. Secured claims. The Plan's effective date occurs seven
days after the closing of the Sale Agreement with Commerce. On the
effective date, the Plan generally provides for the satisfaction of
the allowed secured claims of holders of liens on the properties sold
to Commerce, which are not disputed by the Estate or other parties in
interest on or before the effective date of the Plan. These claims
are summarized as follows:
r
-35-
-36-
Principal plus
Plan classification
Claim holder
interest accrued to
_loverLiber 1, 1984
A - -37
Aspen Institute for
2,421,947
Humanistic Studies
A -34
Central Pennsylvania
182,427
Savings of Shamokin
A -35
People's Savings and
483,606
Loan Association of
Parsons, Kansas
A -36
Bertram Kaufman and
919 , 916
Jonathan Bulkley
A -38
Colonial Investment
190,584
Corp.
A -40
Preusch Properties
255,320
A -41
Burr and Marjorie
225,323
Randles
A -44
Classic Realty
approx.
275,000
A -43
Garfield & Hecht
approx.
600,000
A -39
Arthur Langenkamp
71,733
A -42
Pat Cargill
29,945
A -85
Alan Shaffer
91,,500
•
(as per
stipulation)
A -86
Contemporary
Furniture
52,111
(as per stipulation)
A -46
Hindry & Meyer
9,354
A -87
Clark Equipment
approx. 7,500
-36-
:xyjm
Principal plus
Plan c1_ass i f
i ca ; on Claim m hot d
interest accrued to
November 1. 19Q4
A -47
Business and Office
419
Systems
A -48
Radio Paging of
5,318
Aspen, Inc.
A -56
Morgan & Associates
11,205
A -73
Sirous Saghotoles- _
5,383
lami
A -70
Colorado Supply Co.
1,357
A -59
Arvada Steel Fabri-
26,801
cating
A -76
Graber Construction
41,505
Co.
A -82
Claycomb Engineering
3,847
A -61
Viking Sales Inc.
2,423
A -62
Viking Sales, Inc.
8,614
A -54
Hahl -Kern
20,444
A -83
Gene Bishop
10,929
A -77
Dahl'Cement, Inc.
11,233
A-78
John Bowman dba
25 , 6 51
District Supply Co.
. A -79
Designer Tile
9,678
Gallery, Inc.
A -50
Welding Co.
4,858
A -51
Myers & Co. Archi-
4,732
tectural Metals
A -80
Wheatridge Lumber
48,131
Co.
:xyjm
A -60
Sadeghi Associates
60,153
A -58
Lam -Wood
89,432
A -67
Ludwig Ritsch
13,511
A -75
Custom Home Elevator
41,408
A- 45,63,64,65,66
George Smith
43,467
A -52
Don lsen, Inc. �6�
A -49
City of Aspen
2,745
A -53
Glenn's Enterprises
i lea ed —�
A -55
Basalt Electric Co.
lien released
Inc.
A -57 Gerard Pesman lien released
A -68 Ludwig Ritsch lien declared void
A -69 Aspen Electric, Inc. lien declared void
A -71 Aspen Blueprinting & lien declared void
Supply Inc.
A -72 Robert Pattillo lien released
A -74 Hagman Yaw lien declared void
A -81 Mountain Mobile Mix lien released
•
Total: 6 ,314 ,156
An additional secured claim held by John Barbee, Mary
Barbee and Hallie Rugheimer (Class A -84) may not be paid in full from
the sale proceeds. Instead, the note of the ., claimholder may be
cured, the maturity date reinstated, and paid over a period of
approximately three years in accordance with the terms of the note.
Deferring payment of the note, which bears a low interest rate, per-
mits the Estate to satisfy the note with a lesser expenditure.
Alternatively, the claim may be paid with other secured claims in a
compromised amount. Under either alternative, it is estimated that
ZME
•
approximately $560,000 of sale proceeds will be needed to satisfy
this note through deferred payments. The total of secured claims
becomes $6,909,618 with the inclusion of this claim.
Schiff er estimates that total secured claims will total no
more than 56,825,000 as of November 1, 1984, due to the anticipated
disallowance of some secured claims in whole or in part. The actual
figure may be greater or less than this estimate.
Under 11 U. S. C. § 506 (b) , f ully secured claims are allowed
to accrue interest from the date- of the bankruptcy filing until the
date on which the secured claim is satisfied. In the above table, it
is hypothesized that secured claims will be satisfied on November 1,
1984, and interest is accrued to that date, unless otherwise stipu-
lated. with the, „_claim holder. Section 506(b) may also permit fees,
costs, and charges incurred by a fully secured claim holder to be
recovered from the Estate, to the extent provided by any applicable
agreement between the Debtors and the claim holder. However,
requests for such compensation may. require application to the
Bankruptcy Court, and Court review and allowance.
For those claims above which have not been stipulated to by
the claim holde,, b, the balances on November 1, 1984 have been com-
puted by the Estate. Actual payoff figures will be confirmed with
the claim holders prior to the closing of the sale. In the event
that any claim is disputed by any party in interest, the claim will
attach to the proceeds of the sale pending resolution of the
dispute. If the claim is disputed only in part, the Estate will pay
the undisputed portion and the balance of the claim will attach to
the proceeds of the sale pending resolution of the dispute.
2. Ldmiinistra ive Priority Claims., The f ollowing is a
summary of estimated administrative expenses entitled to priority
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 5 507 (a) (1) . Expenses have been estimated only
for purposes of estimating distribution under the Plan. Actual pay-
ment of administrative expenses shall, where applicable, be preceded
by application to the Court, notice to creditors, and allowance by
the Court.
a. Attorneys' fees. Sherman & Howard, attorneys for
Schiffer in the Debtors' bankruptcy proceedings, had accrued but
unpaid fees and unreimbursed expenses of $214,528. through June 22,
1984. It is estimated that legal fees will continue to accrue at the
approximate rate of $20,000.00 per month through the Plan confirma-
tion date. For purposes of estimating distribution under the Plan,
the sum of $300,000 has been allocated to Sherman & Howard.
-39-
•
Lohf and Barnhill has been, authorized to represent the
Debtors in the -!bankruptcy proceedings, and Thomas F. Quinn has been
authorized to represent the Creditors' Committee in the bankruptcy
proceedings. The sum of $65,000 has been allocated for these attor-
neys for accrued but unpaid fees and unreimbursed expenses.
Kerwin and Elliott claims that it is owed the sum of
$31,000 for its representation of the Debtors in the bankruptcy pro -
ceedings from March 22, 1983 through mid -May, 1983. No fee applica-
tion has been filed with the Court, and no fees have been allowed as
an administrative priority. Nonetheless, for purposes of estimating
distribution under the Plan, the sum of $31,000 has been allocated
for that law firm.
b.� Accountants' fees. Several accounting firms have
been authorize to perform work for the Estate, and have submitted
claims for fees which remain unpaid.
H. Clayton Williams, C.P.A,, was initially employed to
be the Estate's accountant, but found the volume of accounting work
generated by the Estate to be incompatible with his practice. He has
continued to perform accounting functions on a non - exclusive basis.
Mr. Williams' final application for fees and expenses has been
allowed by the Court in the amount of $24,721.
Daiby Wendland & Company, P.C. has been employed as
the Estate's accountants since August, 1983. It estimates that its
non - reimbursed fees and expenses, through. November 1, 1984 will total
4125,000.
c.o Other professional persons. James R. McDade has
submitted a.claim for $35,000 for consulting work performed from
March 22, 1983 through May, 1983.
James J. Mollica has been employed as an appraiser.
He has accrued but unpaid fees and expenses estimated at $15,000
through November 1, 1984. _
d. Other administrative claims. Nasser
asserted a claim in the amount of $99,375, related
petition operation of a restaurant owned by the Estate.
analyzed the claim and believes that nothing is owed d
for expenditures of restaurant funds by Sadeghi for
benefit. It therefore is estimated that no sale proc
expended on account of this claim.
-40-
Sadeghi has
to his post -
Schiffer has
ue to offsets
his personal
eeds will be
a.. Wages. ,Unpaid wages' qualifying for priority
treatment are estimated to total $1,692.80.
b. Deposits. Substantial:_advance room deposits were
received by the Debtors' corporation, Aspen Hotel Management, Inc.,
and applied to operating expenses prior to the filing of the Debtors'
bankruptcy petition. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, approxi-
mately $67,000 of unearned deposits had been disbursed.• On the
Debtors' schedules, these claims were disputed on the grounds that
the claims were-against the corporation rather than the Debtors. For
reasons discussed in Section III.D.4., jafra, the Plan allows claims
against the Estate regardless of whether they appear on their face to
be claims against the Debtors or claims against Aspen Hotel
Management, Inc.
Although no corporate barrier is interposed as a
defense to these claims, 11 U.S.C. S 507(a)(5) provides for priority
treatment of these claims only to the extent that they are claims of
individuals for personal, family, or household use, and do not exceed
$900 per individual. Of the $67,000 in unearned room deposits,
approximately $20,000 appear to qualify for treatment as priority
claims. These priority claims will be paid in full.
c. TAxaz. Schiffer estimates the Debtors' pre -
petition tax liability as follows:
State of Colorado $121,000
(includes Pitkin County and
Aspen sales taxes)
Internal Revenue Services 59,000
These amounts have been confirmed with the applicable taxing
authorities. Property taxes in an estimated amount of $620,000 are
omitted from the. above table due to their inclusion as a cost to be
paid at the closing of the sale to Commerce. See Section IV.D.
upra.
4. General Unsecured Claims.
a. Aspen Hotel_ Management, Inc.: T h e D e b t o r s'
schedules listed $331,618.99 in unsecured claims against Aspen Hotel
Management, Inc. ( "AHM "), which were disputed as personal liabilities
of the. Debtors. AHM was incorporated to be the management company
for the lodges and inns owned by the Debtors. The corporation's
stock was wholly owned by the Debtors, who also were directors and
-41-
officers of the corporation. The AHM creditors primarily are trade
vendors of the various lodges and inns o*.aned by the-'Debtors. Other
AHM obligations include room deposit claims and tax claims discussed
in Section III.E.4.b. and c., supra.
For several reasons, the Plan permits creditors of AHM
to "pierce the corporate veil" and have their claims allowed against
the estate of the individual Debtors. First, AHM was inadequately
capitalized. Second, transactions with trade vendors were not
clearly represented as transactions with AHM rather than the
Debtors. Third, AHM apparently held no board meetings, passed no
resolutions, maintained no minutes, and"
,generally did not transact
its business in a manner that would suggest a corporate existence
independent of the Debtors. Fourth, adherence to the fiction of the
separate existence of the corporation:: would promote injustice.
The above factors particularly are evident in the cir-
cumstances that resulted in non - payment of the AHM creditors listed
on the Debtors' schedules. AHM and the Debtors allegedly entered
into an oral lease pursuant to which the Debtors leased their inns
and lodges to AHM in exchange for fifty percent of AHM's gross
revenues. The other half of AHM's revenues was intended to be used
to satisfy trade debt, salaries, and other operating expenses.
During the year preceding the filing of the Debtors' bankruptcy, tYie
Debtors increasingly were unable to timely pay their personal
liabilities. The Debtors then began to draw more than fifty percent-
of AHM's gross revenues in order to service - personal liabilities,
carrying the excess draw as an account receivable of AHM. As a
result, AHM was drained of its cash funds and became unable to sat-
isfy its trade vendors and employee withholding obligations. it
therefore appears that AHM was operated in the best interests of the
individual shareholders but contrary to the interests of AHM.
Moreover, since the assets of AHM were used to maintain the Debtors'
ownership of their real property, it would appear inequitable to deny
AHM creditors, whose claims were as a result not paid, the right to
share the proceeds of liquidation of that real property.
b. - Estimate of unsecured c)-aims; treatment of
disputed, nnntinaPnt. anri olnimc
Including claims held by creditors' of Aspen Hotel Management, Inc.,
and excluding the claims held by Commerce which are included in
Commerce's claim release, unsecured claims by the Debtors total
approximately $1,300,000. A more accurate estimate of actual unse-
cured claims requires various adjustments to be made, as described
below.
The claim of �ternal Medicine Specialists Medic�l
Group, Inc. was erroneously scheduled as a °secured claim, and should
-42-
v
•.
be reclassified as a unsecured claim. This claimant has in fact
filed its proof of claim as an unsecured claim in the amount ,of
$246,660. A claim of Nasser Sadeghi was erroneously scheduled as a
:secured claim in the amount of $450,000. The claim, which is held by
H &C Corporation, should be reclassified as an unsecured claim. The
amount of the claim is better estimated to total $575,000.
Several claims properly were scheduled as secured
claims, but should now be considered unsecured. Burr and Marjorie
Randles were scheduled as the holders of a claim in the amount of
$250,000, secured by a Deed of Trust on the Nugget Lodge. Since the
bankruptcy filing, relief from stay was given to a senior lienholder
and title to the Nugget Lodge passed to that lienholder, rendering
the Randles' claim unsecured. Rocky Mountain'Equity and Mortgage
Company holds a second Deed of Trust on Highlands House, behind a
senior lien. which appears to encompass most of the value of the
property. Relief from stay has been given to the senior lienholder,
and Rocky Mount=ain Equity has stated its intention, to assert an unse-
cured claim against the estate. The amount of the claim is estimated
to be $105,000.
Approximately $48,000 of claims for room deposits were
scheduled as priority claims but appear to qualify only as general
unsecured claims.
Garfield & Hecht was scheduled as the holder of `a
claim in the amount of $100,000, in addition to a secured claim
scheduled in th-e amount of $401,000. The unsecured claim is not in
addition to the secured claim, and should.be deleted.
With t:h- ese-adju's1ments, sc a claims appear to
total approximately"$2,424,000 in unsecured claim
As of the present date, proofs of claims have been
filed for unsecured claims in the total amount of $11,258,278. Of
this amount, approximately $6,200,000 is claimed by John Cant,
Charles Burt Jr., and The Anchorage, Inc., who assert a claim for
$1,200,000 in actual damages and $5,000,000 in exemplary damages as a
result of alleged breaches in performance of an installment land con-
tract involving the Woodstone Inn. This claim is disputed in its
entirety, as are numerous smaller claims. Schiffer has reviewed
claims and estimates that approximately $3,000,000 in general unse-
cured claims ultimately will be allowed by the-Court.
By an Order of the Court dated February 10, 1984, all
disputed, contingent, unliquidated _,_-or---unscheduled claims were
required to be filed on or before<March 5, 1984: Any unscheduled,
disputed, contingent or unliquidated c1- aim - nailed by that deadline
-43-
is excluded from distribution under the Plan. Paragraph 6.4 of the
Plan requires parties in interest to initiate proceedings to dispute,;
any claims, whether secured or unsecured, on or before the Plan's
effective date. Any claims not disputed within that deadline shall:
be deemed allowed.
5. ,�urcimar of Distribution to reds ors. Based on the
information set forth in Section IV, distribution to creditors under:
the Plan is estimated as follows:
Sale price 91150,000
Less closing costs (including property
taxes and interest on post - petition
loan) -977j,496
Plus cash on hand, utility deposits,
liquidation value of retained property
and carried interests +1,190,800
Equals Ifunds to be distributed 59063,304
Less satisfaction of remaining secured
claims - $6,825,00'0
Less priority claims 807,700
Attorneys 396,000
Accountants 150,000
Other professional 50,000
persons
Wages 1,700
Room Deposits 20,000
Taxes (less 180,000
_ property taxes
included in closing
costs above)
Equals funds remaining for general
unsecured claims:
Estimate of unsecured claims:
Estimate of pro -rata distribution to
unsecured claims:
-44-
1,740,604
3,000,000
58% ��..
assumptid DdsrprjeLj:eUttprtb3bwidumtW n3fSt:%MDm r9ustestimQ-FWW t&d
holder of a general unsecured claim, the most important assumption is.
the amount of general unsecured claims ultimately allowed against the
Estate. For example, if unsecured claims were allowed in the amount,
of $5,000,000, the distribution to unsecured creditors would drop to.
35%- While the Proponents have attempted to provide a realistic pro-
jection of the distribution anticipated under the Plan, no assurance
can be given that the actual distribution will match the above
projection.
The Plan incorporates Paragraph 2(f) of the Sale Agreement,
which provides for certain cash and options to be given to the
Debtors in consideration of the sale of the Debtors' properties to
Commerce. Thee Debtors shall receive the_sum- of- -Sfi0t-,-0 cash at..
the time of the closing of the sale.j In addition, the Debtors shall
receive an option to repurchase the Mine Dumps, 'B-a -r-bee K; and
Barbee B properties for a period commencing six months after the
closing and ending on the first anniversary of the closing. The
option price is $7,000,000 if exercised on the anniversary date, and
if the Debtors exercise the option prior to the anniversary date, the.
option price is reduced by $2,876.71 for each day prior to the annJ.•-
versary, down to a minimum price of approximately $6,476,000 on the
six month date.. James J. Mollica, M.A.I. , has provided opinions of
value for the ,three option parcels, indicating a total value of
$5,100,000.
The Debtors shall also receive any property not sold to
Commerce, to the extent that such property is not subsequently admin-
istered by the Estate. This property includes any assets which the
Debtors are entitled to exempt and for which an exemption is actually
claimed. This property also includes any property which the Estate
may abandon pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 5 554(a) , (b) , or (c) . Any aban-
donment shall occur only after notice -and hearing -to the extent
required by applicable bankruptcy statutes and rules.
The Debtors filed a joint Petition for Relief under
Chapter 11, and their case has been administered as a joint case.
However, no Order has been entered pursuant to 11 US.C. s 302(b) for-
mally consolidating. the Debtors' estates. Paragraph 7.1 of 'the Plan
consolidates the estates, which will have the effect of combining the
Debtors' assets and liabilities in a single pool. Consolidation is
sought in order to simplify estate administration, by eliminating any
need for separate distributions to claim holders. With few
•145-
0
i
exceptions, the Debtors' real property is jointly titled and the
Debtors' liabilities are joint liabilities. Consolidation therefore
would result in a distribution to creditors similar to the distribute
tion which creditors would receive from the separate estates of the
Debtors.
The Bankruptcy Code provides-ir --in gneral, that any class of
creditors which � i -S- not _paid in full at the time o= plan- can£i`rnation
is _impaired." )In the absence of consent.: by an impaired cla83n6
due may be distributed to any junior class of! claim holders
(creditors) or interest holders (in this case, the Debtors). This
'uirement is known as the "absolute priority rule."
In some instances, the Bankruptgy Court may confirm a plan
despite the non - acceptance of an impaired class. For example, the
Court shall override the non- accptance of an impaired class of
secured claims so long as the claimholders in that class receive cash
payments of a value, as of the effective date of the plan, equal to
the value of the claimholders' collateral. This .would apply to most
secured creditors under the Plan described in this Disclosure
Statement. In fact, the Proponents believe:.that the Plan may be con-
firmed over the dissent of any secured cr priority creditor.
The Plan described in this Disclosure Statement distributes
$700,000 in cash plus certain purchase options to the Debtors,
despite-the fact that the class of general unsecured creditors is nog
expected to be paid in full. Since the Debtors are junior to the
class of unsecured claims, the Plan cannot be confirmed by the
Bankruptcy Court unless the unsecured creditors, as a class, accept
the Plan. The class will accept the Plan if the Plan is accepted by
members of the class who hold at least two - thirds in amount and more
than one -half in number of the allowed claims in the class which have
voted. If the class of unsecured claims does not accept the Plan,
there is no provision of the Bankruptcy Code which would permit the
Bankruptcy Court to override that non-acceptance, and confirmation of
the Plan would be denied.
If the unsecured creditors.exercise their power to block
the confirmation of the Plan, it does not mean that the property dis-
tributed to the Debtors will instead be distributed to the unsecured
creditors. It simply means that the Plan will not be confirmed. It
is difficult to predict whether this would eventually result in a
larger or smaller distribution to the unsecured creditors.
-46-
...
*04 UWANN
.410130* MORMON 4K lowu V
The Bankruptcy Code provides-ir --in gneral, that any class of
creditors which � i -S- not _paid in full at the time o= plan- can£i`rnation
is _impaired." )In the absence of consent.: by an impaired cla83n6
due may be distributed to any junior class of! claim holders
(creditors) or interest holders (in this case, the Debtors). This
'uirement is known as the "absolute priority rule."
In some instances, the Bankruptgy Court may confirm a plan
despite the non - acceptance of an impaired class. For example, the
Court shall override the non- accptance of an impaired class of
secured claims so long as the claimholders in that class receive cash
payments of a value, as of the effective date of the plan, equal to
the value of the claimholders' collateral. This .would apply to most
secured creditors under the Plan described in this Disclosure
Statement. In fact, the Proponents believe:.that the Plan may be con-
firmed over the dissent of any secured cr priority creditor.
The Plan described in this Disclosure Statement distributes
$700,000 in cash plus certain purchase options to the Debtors,
despite-the fact that the class of general unsecured creditors is nog
expected to be paid in full. Since the Debtors are junior to the
class of unsecured claims, the Plan cannot be confirmed by the
Bankruptcy Court unless the unsecured creditors, as a class, accept
the Plan. The class will accept the Plan if the Plan is accepted by
members of the class who hold at least two - thirds in amount and more
than one -half in number of the allowed claims in the class which have
voted. If the class of unsecured claims does not accept the Plan,
there is no provision of the Bankruptcy Code which would permit the
Bankruptcy Court to override that non-acceptance, and confirmation of
the Plan would be denied.
If the unsecured creditors.exercise their power to block
the confirmation of the Plan, it does not mean that the property dis-
tributed to the Debtors will instead be distributed to the unsecured
creditors. It simply means that the Plan will not be confirmed. It
is difficult to predict whether this would eventually result in a
larger or smaller distribution to the unsecured creditors.
-46-
B. VOTING BY 'CLAIM HOLDERS
Holders of claims may vote on the Plan by filling out and -
mailing the accompanying ballot. The Bankruptcy Court has set a
deadline for voting, which is stated on the accompanying Order
Approving Disclosure Statement and Fixing: Time for Filing Acceptance
or Rejections of Plan, Combined With Notice :_Thereof. That Order also
sets the date for the hearing on confirmation of the Plan.
For more detailed information regarding your voting right
or other rights in the confirmation process, consult your own
attorney.
Respectfully submitted this_ ,;- day of October, 1984.
Sp cer F. Scfi ifferJ,��h ief
Executive Officer f the
Estate of Hans B. Cantrup and
June M. Cantrup
Hans B. Cantrup, Debtor
une M. Cantrup, Debt r
-47-
rA `did •.
UNSECURED CREDITORS' COMMITTEE
Robert.B. West, Chairman
-48-
N
COMMERCE SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OF
ANGLETON, TEXAS
r
Ella . Neyland, Se for Vice
President
-49-
FD
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: .ASPEN MOUNTIAN LODGE PRELIMINARY GMP /SUBDIVISION
DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1984
@IEadIE
OCT231 I, V
This is to inform you that I have reviewed the Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary
Submission. With concern to statements made in the Introduction and Summary,
Section D, Public Facilities Improvements and Relocations, Water, page 22, the
Water Department will provide service to the project, provided the Water improve-
ments outlined in the PUD agreement, (page 5) are installed; i.e. 12" Water
Main in Galena St.'
It is also our understanding that there will be three new Fire Hydrants installed
on South Galena:_ We would like to take this opportunity to point out there are
some minor discrepancies on the Utility Drawings. The Utility Drawing shows four
new hydrants, two on Mill and two on :Galena.. Also, the Master Plan shows struc-
tures built over the existing 12" main supplying the Aspen Mountain Tank. I am
assuming that the development will take this into account and provide for re -rout-
ing, at the developers expense, the existing 12" main, so as notto interfere with
maintenance access to this main. Please also reference ouR letter of 9/21/84
(attached).
JM:ab
Attachments: (1)
September 21, 1984
0
0
CITY OF -ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, Colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
Mr. A.J. Zabbia, Jr.
Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc
201 N. Mill St.
Suite 207
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear A.J.,
This letter is to note that the developer of the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge
has requested us to temporarily remove our facilities in a portion of Mill Street
and to review our present and future easement needs in the proposed vacation of
Dean Street between Monarch and Galena, Lawn Street and the upper portion of Mill
Street within the Top of Mill Project.
We presently have and will continue to require an easement within the proposed
vacation at the top of Mill Street for the City of Aspen 12" water line and at
such time as contractual arrangements are completed, we will agree to relinquish
easement rights within Dean Avenue between Galena and Monarch as well as,Lawn
Street.
In accordance with our water main extension policy, any water line relocation is
subject to the rules and regulations of the City of Aspen Water Department and is
dependent upon completion of contractual arrangements and easement-acquisition.
Said construction shall be the financial responsibility of the developer.or consumer
If you have any questions., or .require further information, please contact me.
Si cerely,
l
Mr. m rfarkalunas; Director
.City of Aspen Water Department
JM:ab
cc: Planning Dept.
Engineering
MEMORANDUM
TO: ;:City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Env i ronmental_Heal_th __Depa_r tment
3
Aspen, Consolidation Sanitation District's
Fire "Marshall
Fire Chief
Building Department Zoning Enforcement Officer
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision
DATE: October 11, 1984
Enclosed for your review is the Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary
GMP /Subdivision submission for the lodge portion of the project.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to Alan
Richman of the Planning Office, no later than November 5, 1984, in
order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for a public
hearing before the Pitkin County P &Z on November 20th.
Thank you.
/,e oa F c.' As s rA-re r> e3 e: F�,� �. c � �-. 5'r/-4- t3 L
SFe_�er> 15 y i1 -4 P A,S/*6 A - So y ,* ream 5SAA- iri9 67at c-•.
L � 04 l�
iy.4s_gCe✓L
0
i •
. ... eM
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Comission October 2, 198!4
Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with
commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee
Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt, and Mary Peyton present.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS.
Harvey commented on the letter sent to the commissioners whose
terms have expired. Harvey,encouraged Hunt, Tygre, and Pardee to
definitely reapply. The city is'now fo-:lowing proper procedures;
when a term expires; the opened position J.s publicly noticed and new
applications are encouraged. Hunt requested a reaffirmation of
his position now. Is he allowed to sit as a commissioner until
he is reappointed or relieved? Harvey replied that Hunt can sift
on the Commission until relieved.
(Jasmine Tygre arrives in the chambers.)
Harvey reminded the commissioners there is a joint meeting with
City' Council on October 15th at 5:00 p.m. in the council cham-
bers: This will be a work session on SPA. Alan Richman, planning
office, remarked that Council has. many questions about the
resolution. He preferred the commissioners as opposed to the staff
answer the councilmembers' questions about the resolution. He
wanted the councilmembers to see that the commissioners support
the resolution.
Harvey asked Tygre if she has reapplied. Tygre replied yes.
White reminded the commissioners that tomorrow at 4:20 p.m. in
the council chambers Council will resume its discussion over
splitting the planning department.
MINUTES
September 18, 1984: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of
September 18, 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion
carried.
PRE - APPLICATION MEETING
AGATE LODGE
Harvey said this is a pre- application meeting on -the Agate Lodge.
The problem is that the PUD requires architectural review. The
applicant requests an approach to mandatory PUD that does not
require the review of the architectural design.
Colette Penne, planning office, reminded the Commission it
reviewed the application on the Agate which was submitted by
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 1984
Stevenson and his group a.few months ago. They had the property
under option from Butch Clark. Stevenson's group presented a
plan which had some problems. The.Commission defined those
problems and suggested revisions in certain areas of the plan.
Stevenson's group did that, but the Commission still had problems
with certain fundamental areas in the site planning. The Commission
again directed the group to address the issues. The Stevenson's
group decided it did not want- to work with the city; the group
decided not to purchase the property.
The property is still owned by Butch Clark. Clark wants the
Commission to discuss why the mandatory POD was imposed on the
property. Is there an approach whi.ch would not require the
design of the houses and would not require the review of the
architectural design. Could the Commission just review a site
plan? Would the Commission support the renioval of the POD so
that the parcel is zoned-R-6? The R -6 zone would be in conjunction
with the west end neighborhood. Clark does not want to design
and build the entire project. Clark wants to go through full
subdivision, divide the parcel into into single family and duplex
lots, and sell. those subdivided lots to individuals who would
design their own houses.
Penne reviewed the requirements of the POD and the feelings of
the planning office. Remember this is only a pre- applicatioii
conference and discussion. One question the Commission needs to
answer is whether or not to amend the code in the POD section:
Would the Commission support removing a POD through a rezoning?
Architectural design and landscaping plans are required under the
preliminary POD plan. The code reads that the plans should be in
sufficient detail to enable the planning commission to re- evaluate
the architectural and landscaping design features.of the develop-
ment. The plans should show the location of floor area of both
existing and proposed buildings, the maximum heights, the types of
dwelling units, etc. The Commission is provided a commencement
and completion construction table. The Commission is provided
preliminary elevation and perspective drawings of all structures
and improvements.
The proposal by Tom Wells, representative for Mr. Clark, is for
full subdivision of the property. Those lots would be sold. as
raw land for the development of single family units, or duplex
units without architectural design. There possibly would be a
site plan. This proposal is difficult. The division is along
original townsite lots. Wells has indicated his client would be
flexible about lot arrangements offered under a POD. But the
applicant does not want to design houses. The POD can be utilized
:4 Lam_
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
n-411-70=2E. 11..1 -� •�. �. . , .�. • ..-
in terms of the land planning. But, the applicant does not want
to go through all the requirements of.PUD.
Planning office believed that the PUD overlay was placed on that
particular property because of its visual sensitivity. The
property has a real impact on the entrance to Aspen. Therefore,
it is important to review more than a site plan for the
property. There are no slope or viewplane problems. Wells did
mention in his letter of application,. which is included in the
commissioners' packet, that originally the property was used for
a lodge. But, during the L -3 rezoning process the property was used
for long term residential accommodations. The argument by S.lells
is that things have changed and therefore. the PUD is not appropriate
anymore. Planning office disagrees. Nothing has changed. The
use on the property is not as important- as its exterior, visual
,impact.
Penne recommended a solution to accomplish what the applicant
wants. Perhaps the parcel should be zoned R -6 without a PUD
overlay. The disadvantage with that' solution is it does not
provide the flexibility to be innovative with the property. R -6
has a certain amount of compatibility with the neighborhood..
Many R -6 neighborhoods exist along the original townsite lots.
The houses in those neighborhoods are - heterogeneous; there are
Victorians next to contemporary structures.
Harvey understood the Commission's concerns during the original
application process was the visibility of the property (it is the
first piece of property that one sees as one comes into town);
the trees; and the elimination of the alleys. If a PUD land plan
were done then the city might end up with a proper design. Deal
with regular townsite lots then. I
Hunt remarked given the greater amount of setback on Seventh
Street there would be more natural landscaping needed to buffer
the noise from the dwelling, units. That corner is noisy. An
audio type barrier is needed. The PUD discussion anticipated
the development of the property into a semi- commercial use. He
did not have a problem with a straight subdivision. But there
will be problems subdividing along the straight existing lot
lines, especially for the lots along Seventh Street.
Tom Wells, representative for the applicant, investigated what
was meant by "more creativity allowed within a PUD." He misunder-
stood the PUD process in Aspen. He assumed that PUD could be
used either for full blown developments or only for land subdivi-
sions. Most communities provide the options. Usually one could
take advantage of the mixing and matching of density and /or land
3
-.t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Planning-and Zoning Cgmission October 2. 1984
uses allowed in the process. In Aspen one has to go through
steps A to Z, there are no interim ste.ps. The system is built
into the.PUD ordinance. An applicant.has no choice to not fully
develop a project. The PUD ordinance will not accept Clark's
intentions of designing a buffer and using some lot lines. The
PUD requires review of a development through the entire process.
Wells did not suggest eliminating the PUD. The PUD is the one
chance for the city to look at a very sensitive lot. He agreed
with certain points in the planning office memo dated October 2,
1984. The block is one of the most visually sensitive in Aspen
and should be developed in a manner which enhances the image of
the community. The PUD overlay will allow for innovation in the
site plan, retention of some major trees, a provision for a
buffer along Seventh Street, and cluste-ring of lots or structures.
Eie agreed with that statement 100 %. The lot is very sft.:cial.
The Agate Lodge is certainly substandard and has been that way
for a long time. A PUD was imposed on the assumption that the
property would be developed as a lodge. The city wanted to make
sure a good project was developed there.. fleanwhile, the owner
voluntarily engaged in long term rentals. The property was
under long term rental when the L -3 zone which preserved lodge
zoning was established. The property did not qualify for the L -3
status.
The PUD still exists. Clark can develop the property himself. He.
can hire an architect to design a total development plan. He can
find another developer who would accept that design. Or he can
sell the property to another developer who would provide an
alternative design. The extreme solution is to break the property
along the lot lines into normal patterns of the R -6 zone and not
respect the fact that the lot is special. House. sites could be
established and sold as residential lots, either as single family
units or duplex units, with no change in density, no change in
unit count. But the code does not address this. These individual
lots could be designated with a PUD overlay, similar to Castle
Creek Drive. He encouraged the varied natural textures of the
west end community over a homogeneous development like the
villas.. The west end is picturesque: new and remodeled Victorians
side by side with contemporary architecture. He preferred to go
through the PUD process as a land plan process. The R -6 underlying
zoning establishes the density, therefore, there is no, change in
the density. .. "
Creativity can be established under a PUD. Perhaps berms and
walls and landscaping can be established on Seventh Street to
protect the visually sensitive area before the development is
4.
2,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reqular Meetin4 _Plan na and Zoning Commission October 2. 198, -,
built. He cannot detail the exact conditions. But, it is not
realistic to establish building envelopes or driveways or to
determine which trees to save under the individually owned
concept. He cannot dictate to everyone how to design their
houses. He envisioned many small duplexes, similar to the
project for Doremus on Smuggler between Seventh and Eighth. He
preferred a design of quiet small buildings. An entire block of
similarly designed structures would not be interesting. He
favored the varied textures of the west end along that visually
vulnerable block.
Harvey quoted from the planning office mEmo dated October 2, 1984,
page one, paragraph one:
"sufficient detail to enable the planning Commission to
evaluate the architectural, landscaping, and design features
of the planned unit development... the plan should show the
location and floor area of all existing and proposed buildings,
structures... including maximum heights, types of dwelling
units..."
Harvey asked why certain requirements cannot be waived within the
PUD process. Richman replied the code does not allow the Commission
to waive those requirements. Harvey argued the code allows for
variances within a PUD. Perhaps an architectural control committee
can be established for the project. Pardee reasoned there is a
PUD overlay because the site is visually critical. Many times
mandatory PUD is placed on a property for slope reduction without
requiring architectural plans. The critical reason mandatory PUD
is imposed on some properties is because of the slope. The area
reduced by the slope affects the density: The critical reason the.
PUD is imposed on this lot is because of its visual vulnera-
bility. Therefore, he does see a problem with a site or land
PUD.
Penne explained there is a problem. The only thing that is exempt
under a mandatory PUD is a single family house. Even the owners
of duplexes, like Roush, had to come in with a request for
exemption from mandatory PUD. Pardee suggested an exemption from
PUD if the applicant were to agree to restrictions defined on the
property by the Commission. Penne argued a PUD may be desirable
for the buffer zone. Harvey interpreted Pardee's recommendation:
blackmail an applicant from an exemption from PUD with an approved
land plan. Pardee said the Commission is not so concerned with
the area to the east. He would insist there be a - buffer on
Seventh Street. IIe would insist the design plans for the first
two homes on Seventh Street be reviewed. Exempt the other lots
from PUD. Under PUD he 'would be willing to grant the allowed
5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984
maximum FAR for a 6,000 square foot lot even though each lot may
be less than 6,000 square feet. The lots, may lose land, approxi-
mately 500 square feet, to the buffer zone.
Wells commented that Clark's original preliminary layout included
two duplex lots on Seventh Street, which provided 90 feet to play
with. That layout provided flexibility to create a meandering
buffer. Pardee requested the -trees be saved and the alley be
maintained. Harvey interjected the issue is not what the Commission
wants to see in the PUD, but the issue i.E how can Clark's request
be done legally within a PUD. If there is not a legal solution;
then should the PUD be removed.
Richman explained this request can be accomplished through ail
exemption from mandatory PUD. If the Commission were to find the
development meets the intents and purposes of PUD then the
applicant would not have to go through all the rigorous requirements
of PUD. However, the applicant would still have to go through full
subdivision. This project would have to go before the Commission
and Council twice. He did not know 'if Council would agree to
this concept. The Commission is entrusted with exemptions from
mandatory PUD. If the project were consistent with PUD intent
then the project might not have to meet the PUD requirements.
From the perspective of design and results Wells said he did not
have a problem with Pardee's recommendation. However, that solution
still forces Clark into either designing or developing the two
duplexes on Seventh Street. Perhaps there could be an agreement
that the city maintains total control. with the understanding
that their is PUD, that their is a buffer, the Commission can review
those two duplexes as they come along- as a neighborhood PUD
overlay.
Wells specified that Clark's original plan included two duplex
lots 90 feet from Seventh Street, and three single family• units
on each side of Sixth or a total of six single family units.
White remembered the Commission's concern during the review of
the original application was the buffer, the trees, and the
alley. There was a concern about the homogeneity of the houses.
He favored the varied textures. If there were someway the city
could have its concerns on Seventh Street mitigated and the
applicant could accomplish his goals then he would be willing to
work out a system whereby free enterprise was not limited in the
less critical portion of the entire site. Perhaps an easement is
the answer.
Wells assured the Commission that the R -6 zone spells out height,
6
t •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reaular Meetin4 Planning and ZonirLcL Ccmm sion October 2. 198
setbacks, floor area, parking, everything. . It is only the
aesthetics of the design concept that the Commission is required
to review. White encouraged the solution be as simple as possible.
He would be willing to remove the restrictions of a PUD on much
of the site if the city were to receive what it wants on Seventh
Street. Wells remarked the city does not have an architectural
review committee.
Hunt recommended that the Commission establish the preconditions
which the Commission has stated before". If lot M were to stay
within those prior stated conditions for the entire PUD then the
Commission would define the lot for FAR purposes as 6,000 square
feet even though the lot -was only 5,500 square feet. If all th.e
prior conditions were met by the individual lots then what
would be the problem. If the lots were °to maintain the precondi-
tions then the lots would be exempt from the PUD. Require that
the two lots on Seventh Street have a full PUD.
Richman suggested the Commission come to a consensus as to
whether the applicant's approach is acceptable. Do not design
the legal solution, let the planning office' discuss a legal
solution to the problem with the city attorney. If the Commission
were not worried about consistent architecture across the entire
PUD then that would be all. the planning. office needs to know to
work with the applicant.
Tygre noted the PUD overlay will have to remain. If the buffer
zone were created the PUD would have to remain to address the
changes in the sizes and arrangements.of the houses.
Harvey said the site plan indicates conforming lots; the con-
figuration is six thousand square feet, six thousand square feet,
six thousand square feet, and nine thousand square feet. The
buffer area would be some kind of easement. The difficulty is
creating the mechanism which would provide for permanent maintenance
of the buffer zone, whether it be a stonewall with ivy or whatever.
If the owner of this particular lot were to grant an easement to
the city, then how would the buffer zone be maintained by future
property owners. There is no incentive to maintain the buffer.
The buffer zone generates nonconforming lots on Seventh Street.
.The critical question is should the city require a PUD on those
two duplex lots fronting Seventh. Should the city require the
owner or developer to create the buffer the way the city wants?
If so, should the buffer become a common element in an-,homeowners
organization even though those two duplex lot owners would
maintain the buffer? On the other hand, if an easement were
given to the city, then the city could create and maintain the
buffer area as it wants.
7
• aw
t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
• -• -- 1• .. 111 MOMIM •1. 1• •L -l1.. WRI 'Lei I • ..-
Pardee asked if a duplex or a single family structure is going on
the duplex lot. If a duplex were built there, then it would
occupy a greater portion of the extra lot._ The city would not gain
that much. The concern is the size, description, and looks Of the
two duplexes. or single family homes. The other concern is the
appearance of the buffer. He would not release anything until
the city has reviewed those two lots.
Wells repeated he still does not want to design the buildings. The
city is forcing Clark to develop something he does not want to
develop. Design flexibility is important. Flexibility is much
greater with a duplex on 90 feet rather °than with a single family
house on 60 feet.
Pardee opposed the development of the six family units without
addressing the two most critical lots. He did not want to see
the most critical lots developed or reviewed. last. Pardee would
not release any PUD until the Commission has reviewed those two
parcels and reviewed the mitigations.
Wells commented that the original layout by Clark included a
buffer. But the original plan did not consider who would maintain
the buffer. It would be advantageous if the city maintained the
buffer. The city could coordinate the buffer with the island.
The city could define and maintain the kinds. of trees and shrubs
in area. Then Commission can review the design when the duplexes
come up for development.
Pardee asked if the same setbacks would be maintained for a
duplex. How much would be given to the city? Harvey answered
that would be determined through the process of negotiation.
Harvey asked if the Commission favored an approach to enable the
Commission to do a PUD land plan for the critical Seventh Street
frontage and if the Commission favored retaining the PUD overlay
on those two lots. Richman interjected that PUD involves a
minimum of 27,000 square feet. This solution is not workable.
Harvey asked the Commission's position about exploring a thirty
foot easement. Harvey concluded the solution will probably be some
agreed upon land plan and easement granted to the city. The city
would then maintain that sensitive part of the property.
Penne remarked the Commission may not want to extract the maximum
density for the property. Even if the Commission were to want a
buffer without a PUD there might not be room for maximum allowed
density. The suggestion to allow the maximum FAR that the block
n will absorb is not necessarily a good solution. If houses.with
M
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
maximum FAR were allowed and if the houses were grouped more
closely together, then there might result a tighter grouping of
larger houses. The visual impact would be massive. Wells maintained
that the lot sizes did not have to be limited. Keep the full PUD
process for the two sensitive lots on Seventh. Richman reiterated
that cannot be done, PUD requires 27,000 square feet. Hunt said
keep the PUD on the entire block but exempt the lots which comply
with the preconditions from the PUD requirements.
Richman supported the exemption approach. Keep the PUD on the
entire property. Go through PUD review procedures. The Commission
could determine that full architecture was not appropriate and
could exempt the individual owners from the full architectural
procedures if the applicant were to demonstrate the alleviation.
of the Commission's concerns with sufficient detailed informatior.
If the Commission were to agree with this concept then planning
office with the city attorney could try to design a program to
make that happen.
Pardee asked the Commission if it wants to review the architectural
design of the two houses on Seventh Street. Seven commissioners
favored this; one opposed. Pardee-commented that it was a
mistake to impose the PUD on the entire block. But he would not
support removing the PUD until the two most critical parcels are
reviewed. Fallin did not support carte blanche exemption nor did
she support the request by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING
ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE
CONCEPTUAL GMP SUBMISSION AND SCORING SESSION
Harvey opened the public hearing.
-Penne provided the cbmmi'ssioners a project profile and the score
sheets. There is only one application. It is for 4,500 square
feet of commercial space. The space is part of the Aspen mountain
Lodge project. The applicant came through the original lodge
competition with a proposal for 8,500 square feet of commercial
space. The commercial space has been reduced to 4,500. The
commercial space is ony the ground floor of the hotel. The space
is for retail space for permitted uses in the cl zone; the same
uses permitted in cc with the provision that the space is- at
street level with lodging above. The quota available, in the cl
and other. zones is 3,000 square feet. The request, iswfor a year
and one -half quota.
Harvey acknowledged that 3,000 square feet is available in the 1984
quota. -But, how many square feet did Council eliminate in 1983?
9
d Yi.
r P L401 I • 9 MU •• v
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 191
There was an 8,000 square foot accumulation over the years of
unallocated commercial square footage. Penne commented it does
not make sense to phase 4,500 square feet over the years. Harvey
reasoned the Commission is officially taking from future 'yea.r,s
allocation, but remember there was 8,000 square feet from the
past never used Penne noted that construction activity like the
Skier Chalet and the Pro Shop at the golf course are subtracted
from this category. Skier Chalet is exempt from the allocation
because it is an historically designated structure.
Penne. remarked all employee housing is being considered for the
lodge project as a whole. The employee housing number is still
being revised. The number of employees has been reduced drama -
tically since the original submission. The provision of housing
for this particular application, 4,500 square feet of commercial
space, is for..six employees in addition to the lodge's require-
ments. These six employees will be put in housing at the Airport
Business Center. Thesc units will be converted from free ip.,arket
to employee housing. As tea; numbers are refined in preliminary
PUD for the entire hotel project, the six employees for this
application will remain fixed. Those six have to be provided.
Harvey said 4,500 square feet translates to 15.8 employees (4,5.00
times 3.5 employee per thousand square feet generated in the "cl
zone totals 15.8 total employees). Six employees are only 38% of
the total required. Track these six employees. Keep these six
employees in perspective with the 15.8 figure. The employee
..figure needs to be related to employees per 1,000 square feet and
to be related to the project.
- Penne encouraged the Commission to consider the amenities package
for this project as part and parcel of the entire hotel project.
Peyton asked if there is. a formula for determining the number of
employees based on the zone category. Penne explained use is the
critical factor; 3.5 employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial
use. Peyton asked if the planning office has calculated the
total number of employees generated for the entire PUD based on
the square footage per use. Penne answered yes. But, she is not
familiar with the numbers. Vann has been handling this. Joe
Wells, consultant for the applicant, explained the figures have
been developed over the years by the housing authority. A formula
exists. Peyton asked if all the different uses for the hotel are
added together for a total number of employees for the PUD.
Someone said yes.
Hunt cited some problem.areas in the application. How will this
commercial space be serviced by service and delivery vehicles?
10
.._..�.;..._. ..,.,_� ......... ..... ... -:.... .;. r_,_.- .- ...;.- ...+;�f+v�:*z^...�.,... rem+: ^� ^....��
RECORD OF PROCEEDYNGS
�,NFFIM MV
Commercial uses require. semi trailers, trucks, and service
vehicles..J. Wells responded the service bay as proposed is along
Deane. The proposal complies with the city's standards. Hunt
said the city standards may not be good enough. The commercial
building will probably accommodate a ski shop and other retail
spaces which will require some degree of service vehicles. Deane
Street appears to be a divided street or. two single lanes with a
divider in the middle of the street. Part: a semi trailer or truck
which service the building on'Deane and the circulation is
affected. Accommodate the service vehicles on Galena or Durant
Street, a main transit route, the circulation again is affected.
There is a major design flaw for the service vehicles.. J. Wells
clarified there is a service bay for semi trailers and trucks at
the east side of the east wing of the hotel. He considered
refiling the hotel application in order to obtain a scoring for
the commercial project. Harvey said details' have not been shown
for this problem. J. wells again said there is a full blown
service bay associated with the east side of the hotel. Hunt
asked the location of the service bay on page twenty -three
of the documented submitted for the GMP application. Incidentally,
page twenty -three and page twenty do not agree. He does not
understand what is going on. The proposal is insufficient.
John Doremus, consultant for the applicant, mentioned the median
on Deane is nonexistent in the current plan. Perhaps include
that. as a caveat in a condition of approval.. This is not an
alley to be used necessarily by other trucks. The public may
access the street although the applicant owns the street.
Therefore, the regulations regarding parking can be somewhat
different than the . parking regulations on an alley or public
street. The easiest way to handle semis and cars on Deane, which
has no median, is to create a two way alley which would be twice
as wide than a standard alley. Remember the building is a one
floor commercial building. The commercial building will not be
as active as a two to four story building. Hunt interjected part
of the problem is exacerbated by the fact he has not received any
floor plan of the commercial building. Service areas are extremely
important. There are also major inefficiencies in the service
bay for the main hotel project. These issues need to be addressed.
J. Wells reminded the commissioners the project is continually in
flux. This is a conceptual review. -The proposal complies with
the service requirements of the city. There is a ramp proposed
to the underground parking in the immediate area to accommodate
service vehicles. Review that option later on in'the other
review process. Presently, there is a service bay on Deane
Street; the street will be vacated for the applicant's ownership
on the south end of the commercial building. There is also a
11
Reaular Meeting_ Plann* c and Zoning C missial October 2. 198,
complete service bay associated with the east wing of the hotel.
The full range of service solutions should be handled through the
preliminary review process.
Hunt noted there is no curb cut shown on the sidewalk on Deane.
He does not see a service area for the commercial building.
J. Wells again said the building is constantly being redesigned,
the only assurance he can give' to the Commission is that it will
have another opportunity to address this issue during preliminary
review.
Penne worked on 'certain assumptions for the scoring. If the
proposal were to get through the entire conceptual PUD with a
major design flaw then the system might not be working well.
But, there is a preliminary PUD coming up. Any of those specific
details can be worked out at that level. It is difficult to
separate and divorce a small 4,500 square foot segment from such
a large project as the Aspen Mountain PUD. It is difficult to score
the 4,500 square foot segment. The Commission has to assume that
the plan is at an acceptable level of . design since the overall
project has been extensively run through one step of the process.
Hunt said even if the overall design is acceptable there are
v4�,a details which are quite unacceptable. Harvey said site design
addresses landscaping and open space, it also addresses arrangements
of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access for
service vehicles. This specific scoring category for this appli,
cation is deficient to the degree the Commission cannot satisfac-
torily give it a score of excellence. Penne said there will
be sufficient opportunity to work these details-out at the
.preliminary level. Harvey commented that Hunt can by right score
the category with a zero because the design is deficient in
addressing service vehicles and circulation. J. Wells reiterated
the city defines the standards that an applicant complies with.
This applicant has complied with the established standard. The
document states the applicant complies with the trash and access
standards as currently defined with the city. Harvey responded
but there is no design presented.
Hunt believed the discussion in the submission under the category
of .energy is deficient also. The submission discusses lodge
conditions but the discussion does not relate to the commercial
portion of the lodge. The conditions of unoccupied rooms are not
necessarily applicable to commerical spaces. The discussion does
not sufficiently identify energy, efficient equipment and design.
"HBAC air conditioning" normally means closed cycled refrigeration
type air conditioning. That is not an efficient system for
commercial space. Harvey thought there was a generic reference
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDING
to heating ventilation and air conditioning. Hunt said there is
insufficient information to grade this category with a good
score." J. Wells said the 4,500 square feet of commercial space
is a minor element to the whole. The overall issue of energy for
the 500,000 square foot property is much more important than the
issue of energy for 4,500 square feet.
White said it is difficult to score tYii:s application when the
overall project needs to be considered. One concern is with
transportation; there is no circulation plan. There is a problem
reviewing and evaluating one discreet proposal from an overall
project. He criticized the system: the Commission does not
receive enough information for the one; discreet project and ye±:
proceeds to approve the discreet proposal. Is there a place to
comment about the insufficient information? In order to evaluate
the discreet proposal there is certain information which is
needed now that will not come forward until the overall project
is reviewed. Presently, there is no. circulation plan for vehicles
and pedestrians for the commercial space.
Pardee argued there is a difference between conceptual and
preliminary review. It would be unfair to require finite, exact,
detailed architectural plans until the applicant receives conceptual
'j approval. Harvey reasoned when an applicant is looking for
approval to build only a lot then the GDIP process is the greatest
level of detail. But this particular case is associated with .a
preliminary PUD application. The preliminary review will be the
appropriate forum for the detailed submission. There is a loop
of good faith.
Tygre shared the concerns expressed by Hunt and White. There is
every reason to believe the applicant will show designs for all
these concerns at preliminary. The applicant is redesigning all
the time. But, there is still a feeling that this is out of
control. There are many elements to this project. Normally,
under the growth management process the details would be presented
now. But, much is being deferred to the preliminary level. The
GMP scoring is based on the assumption that these questions will
be resolved satisfactorily at preliminary review. But what
happens if the problems are not satisfactorily resolved at
preliminary. That is the concern.
J. Wells remarked the entire process is very inflexible. The
applicant is working with amended resAidential GMP applications
and with amended lodge GMP applications. The more that is defined
the more likely there will be amendments. The building.design is
in flux. Tygre said this situation is the perfect justification
for the "Cantrup build now and ask permission later plan."
13
w-
. 11.E 4 ..•
I M9 Rik I
J. Wells said the `Commission has to find, comfort in that it has
control through the PUD process. Harvey said the Commission can
-grant a growth management approval or allocation with the assurance
that this proposal will not be built if all the questions are not
answered in the preliminary PUD process. Tygre said somewhere
in the growth management approval process these concerns should
be recorded. Penne said the concerns expressed through the
scoring or through this discussion will be conveyed to Vann who
is taking the Aspen Mountain Lodge project through preliminary
PUD. The concerns will be incorporated in the planning office's
submission.
Harvey requested the minutes of this meeting be submitted as
part of preliminary PUD.
J. Wells clarified certain points. First he wants. to try to
avoid filing amendments. He clarified the statement on energy -
Specifically, in order to get a .quality operator it may be
necessary to air condition the rooms. The operator may not
accept those three or four days in summer without air condi-
tioning. The other aspects delineated under energy will be
retained. There will still be a computer system which monitors
the systems.
J. Wells continued. Under site design Penne has recommended the
maximum points. She has stated that the applicant is offering
more than 25% open space_ for the entire PUD and the lodge. The
overall PUD open space is still 50 %. But, the hotel open space
is now 25.3 %. There is a reason for the change The ice rink has
been relocated from a space which was not counted in open space
because it was more than ten feet below grade to a space which
was counted in the open space figures. That space to which the
ice rink has been relocated will now not be counted in open space
because of the definition of the ice rink as a recreational use
in L -3. The open space in the internal, courtyards also has been
reduced. Land which is ten feet below grade is not counted in
open space.
Why does the applicant not receive.maximum points for storm
drainage? J.-Wells did not know. The proposal deals with on site
problems and handles the problems identified by Wright- McGloughlin
many years ago. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to address
that problem. He quoted from the previously submitted storm
drainage report: - ... .
"The construction of a pond or ponds to retain and store the
historic unpolluted runoff from the area of Aspen Mountain,
south of. the proposed development, will. reduce the chance
14
Rgqulai Me6tirq Planning and'Zolling Commission' October 2. 1984
of flooding of the project* and areas downstream of the
project. The construction of this retention pond was
recommended in the Wright- McGloughlin report.. And although
some effort to provide the storage has been made by private
individuals the completed construction has .never been
accomplished. The construction in conjunction with this
project will fulfill a need required to protect the core
business area of Aspen. It should be kept in mind that this
storage is for upstream historic storm water from Aspen
Mountain and not for storm water generated by or on the
project site."
Hunt asked if there is a conceptual system under the energy
section. Wil:i a hot water, chill water loop run through 1 -he
hotel? Will air conditioning work off that? Or will there be a
forced air system? J. Wells said the idea of solving the swamp
coolers has been abandoned.. Hunt asked if the main system is
pre-cooled 'with swamp coolers. J. Wells could not answer the
questions.
Penne explained the recommended scoring provision for employee
housing is based on a formula. That item is not a discretionary
item. The same holds true for the conversion of existing units.
Planning office does not grant bonus points but the Commission
can.
The Commission grades the GMP application.
Peyton asked if part of the entire PUD were not to receive an
allocation then what would happen to the entire PUD project. Harvey
replied that portion which did not receive a growth management
allocation could not be built. The portions of the PUD which
satisfy two concerns, receive PUD approval. and receive a growth
management allocation, could be built. Peyton asked if there is a
condition attached to the resolution on conceptual approval that
states that the separate parts _have to be approved before the
entire PUD or any part of the PUD can be built. J.- Wells replied
yes. Pey.ton said theoretically if one part were not to meet
threshold the entire project could be killed.
Gideon Kaufman commented he has .a client that is planning to
compete next year in the cc district. He suggested in years
where there are no competitors, instead of eliminating the
allocation for that year create the ability to preserve some of
the allocation so the city does not have to borrow from future
year allocations. This ability "also allows someone to build an
average size building without having to phase construction over a
two year period. Harvey said Council in 1983 eliminated the
15.
RECORD OF jPROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission October 2, 1
backlog of allocations. Kaufman said no one is competing this
year in the cc zone. .hf someone were to come. in the next year
with a submission for a 12,000 square foot building then the
applicant could ask for an allocation from the previous year and
not for an allocation from the future year. Preserve the ability
to borrow an allocation, from the year which had no competitors.
Harvey asked � if. Kaufman 'is requesting in the recommendation
concerning commercial G14P a statement. that the, cc quota, which
received no application for the 1984 allocation, be maintained
and carried.forward. Kaufman stated at least provide the ability
to carry forward the 1984 allocation. Harvey said the Commission
could recommend to carry the quota forward. Kaufman explained if
the allocation: were not used the allocation would be eliminated.
With his proposal the city would be in a position in the following
year not to borrow from the future year allocation if a submission
were to request more than the allocation for that year.
Hunt asked if Council can regenerate the allocation it eliminated.
'Harvey pointed out if the Commis: r_ sere not to recommend to
carry forward the unused allocation from this year to next year,
then the allocation would be eliminated. Specific action is
-necessary to carry the allocation forward. Pardee q- uestioned that
statement. He believed the allocation is carried forward automa-
-tically. s Penn,.-- said she thought if there were to be an elimination
of carry.-over then specific action would be necessary; she was
not sure. Kaufman said traditionally when the Commission does
not recommend the allocation be carried over that the allocation
is eliminated.
-Penne stated the application passed the scoring.
Motion.
Roger Hunt moved to forward the results of the growth management
plan to the City Council, to recommend approval, and to recommend
that the City Council allocate a -future half year allocation to
this project so that the project can be. completed in a timely
fashion. The rilotion, is seconded by Jasmine Ty.gre.
J. Wells requested that the request to carry forward cc allocation
be incorporated in.a separate motion.
Discussion. "Pardee' recommended change "growth management plan"
to "growth management plan scoring." Roger Hunt amended his
motion to read:
"...' to forward the results of the growth- management plan
16
RECORD 7,�
OF PROCEEDINGS
scoring to the City Council..."
The amendment is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion
carried.
Welton Anderson moved to recommend to Clity Council that Council
carry forward the cc commercial square footage from the 1984
competition since there were no competitors. lie recommended
that the allocation be added in the potential for - future years in
the cc zone. He also recommended to carry over other commercial
quotas, for example the o and the cl. The reason for this recom-
mendation is there will be an inventory. ; of allocation so that the
city will not have to borrow from future years to approve any
project. Seconded by David White.
Discussion.' Pardee would ,oppose the motion. The Commissicn
should not recommend that allocation be.made available. Recommend
instead that Council not eliminate the allocations. The Commission
should not be perceived as a body which encourages growth. The
Commission should encourage the options. He preferred the
phrasing "the Commission recommend that Council not eliminate
this year's quota from future allocation." White supported the
language of the current motion, the motion as it stands is
positive. The amended motion is negative. Pardee argued the
existing language could be interpreted as a pro growth position.
Harvey interrupted. There is a difference of opinion as to how the
system works: Kaufman is saying that.the Commission should take
this action or the allocation is eliminated. Kaufman stated he
does not want the allocation eliminated. If the Commission wants
to change the motion, let the motion state that the Commission
requests that the allocation not be eliminated and be made available
for future use. Pardee questioned the statement that the allocation
disappears. The only time the allocations disappeared was when
Council took affirmative action. Hunt suggested amending the
.motion to direct the planning office to draft a resolution with
the appropriate language depending on what the circumstances
are. It is unclear at this time whether eliminating the allocation
requires Council action or whether to carry over the allocation
requires Council action. Penne stated the Commission is not even
required to make a recommendation on quota. Kaufman said the
dispute is over semantics. The basic concept is the - Commission
does not want the quota eliminated. w
Welton Anderson amended the motion to read:
"The Commission recommends to Council not to eliminate the
17
The amended motion is seconded by David White.
Discussion. Wallin asked if one were to vote in the affirmative
would the unused allocation be added every year. Harvey explained
the motion addresses only the 1984 quota.. Hunt recalled that in
prior years the city has, used previous years unallocated quotas.
Did it take Council action to eliminate the unallocated quotas?
Hunt asked if Council does not take action what happens to the unal-
located quota. Penne replied if Council were not to take action
then the unallocated quota would be carried over. Harvey said
that issue is not clear. Hunt preferred a resolution.
Harvey called for a roll call vote on the motion on the floor:
Pardee nay
white nay
Hunt nay
Fallin nay
Anderson aye
Harvey aye
Tygre nay
The motion is not carried: two in favor, five in opposition.
Harvey directed the planning office to prepare a resolution
which outlines the Commission's position. Find out if the
Commission were not to do anything would the allocation be
dropped or carried forward. If the allocation were to be dropped
.then the Commission would favor a, resolution which recommends the
allocation be carried forward. If Council were not to act on the
allocation carry over and if the allocation were not dropped by
the Council's inaction then there would be no action by this
Commission.
J. Wells asked given Council's bias does the Commission want to
take no position. Kaufman said there is a difference between
what happened in previous years and what happened last year. At
the same time the Council eliminated the quota Council eliminated
a large amount of available quota. The quota in the o (office)
zone is 4,500 square feet. That makes it virtually impossible .to
complete a 6,000 square foot building. He would like to see that
1984 allocation carried forward. It is important for the Commission:
to make a positive statement on this as opposed to no-statement
at all.
Hunt said the issue is how to word the statement. That is why he
��
18
•_• 1• tl1_ }, EFV#Ti 470F_11 !• 1411. • } • ••' • R•
wants the planning office to research and write the resolution.
Harvey directed Penne to determine if the Commission were not to
do anything then would the allocation automatically go
forward. Bring back a resolution.
NEW BUSINESS
NUGGET LODGE, SPECIAL lREVIEW
Penne said the Nugget went through condominiumization on August
7, 1984. It was not understood at that time that the FAR was
to be increased. The plans presented did not detail that informa-
tion. HPC reviewed and approved the elevations of the design.
But, the FAR is increasing from 18,300 square feet to 19,90.0
square feet and from a ratio of .68:1 to .72:1. There will be a
large lobby area. The existing decks and solariums will be
enclosed. There will be some covered access walkways. Height
will not be increased. The renderings are included in the
Commission's packet. The design is.an improvement. There are no
adverse impacts on the neighborhood by this slight increase in
FAR. The possible maximum FAR. in L -3 zone is 1:1. But any
increase in FAR has to be approved by the Commission. That is
why the applicant is before the board. The Commission takes
final action on this request.
Harvey asked if there is any increase in the footprint. Anderson
answered yes. Harvey said the expansion is toward Main Stree=
for entrance area. What is the old setback? What is the new
setback on Main Street? Anderson measured the expansion at six
feet. Augie.Reno, applicant, said the setback will be eight feet
after the expansion. Anderson said the required setback is ten
feet. Harvey asked if this action requires a variance. Reno
replied no; the expansion is eight feet from the building.. Harvey
asked if the only location for increase in the footprint is the
lobby area. Reno answered yes.
Kaufman, counsel for the applicant, said it was his fault for not
mentioning the increase during the condominiumization process.
The FAR increase was one of many things his client was committing
to when his client received his condominiumization approval.
Kaufman did not know at the time of condominiumization that
the closing of the walkways and decks increased the FAR. The
increased FAR should have been reviewed and addressed concurrently
with the condominiumization discussion. Any increase in FAR
in the L -3 zone requires special review approval. It was spelled
out in the condominiumization that his client intended to do the
enclosures. 'The enclosures were part of the $350,OOO.figure for
remodeling. He apologized.
19
a�
t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Harvey asked if the Commission has any problem with the request.
He asked if the plans can be part of the approval. Kaufman
suggested the language in the motion "as spelled out on the
added FAR floor plans attached that show specifically what his
client is asking for." Penne noted the Commission is setting the
FAR and is setting what the FAR is being used for. These plans
will be sent to the,, building department so they can check this
particular remodeling. Harvey said the approval should cite that
the increased FAR will be in the form described in the second
paragraph of the planning office memo dated October 2, 1984.
Reno presented the floor plans for the proposed expansion and
enclosures. He delineated the open space to be covered, the.
proposed two foot projection, the lobby area, etc.
Kaufman continued. If his client were to later discover that he
needed to inc -rease the approved 1,500. square feet for a three
foot overhang-which was not even considered, then Drueding might
say that the three foot overhang is not allowed because the 1,500
square feet only includes the lobby, the solarium, and the
covered walkway. Kaufman does not want to have to return again
for special review approval for a three foot overhang projection;
Harvey suggested language: "increased lobby area, enclosing the
existing decks with solariums,. and adding additional covered
access walkways..." Harvey did not want to see the applicant
construct an e -ght foot tower. He wanted to pin down the approval.
Does that language accommodate the applicant? Penne explained
the problem. with an open ended approval. It is required in the
L -3 zone when FAR is increased to define the increase. Randy
Gold, applicant, stated he could live with Harvey's wording. How-
ever, he does not want Drueding to deny something which is
included in the plans but not included in the language of approval.
He would accept Harvey's wording with the drawing. Harvey
- replied as long as Gold-works within the set FAR then Drueding
will not do that. Harvey cannot approve an open ended increase
in the floor area ratio.
• •�
Welton Anderson moved to approve the special review for the
increase in exterior floor area ratio for the Hotel Aspen,
also known as the Nugget, from its present 18,297 square feet to
19,915 square feet, increasing its FAR from .68:1 to :72:1. The
increased FAR will be in the form of increased lobby area,
enclosed existing decks with solariums, and added additional
covered access walkways. There will not be any increase in the
height. The motion is. seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor;
motion carried.
20
i�
4kSPEN *PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
September 11, 1984
Doug Graybeal G5 ? 0 W _�= I
Hagman Yaw Architects �
210 So. Galena St. r;� 1 319M
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Carbon Monoxide Removal System.
Dear Doug:
This office has contacted the Colorado Health Department's Air
Pollution Control Division to determine the feasibility of having
The Lodge - Top of Mill - Galena install an air - cleaning system
for the underground parking structure.
Adequate air- handling facilities will have to be designed
into the complex to eliminate any build -up of air contaminants
inside the parking structure. However, it is apparent that the
systems that exist to remove carbon monoxide from such areas
before the air is exhausted would not be satisfactory for this
facility. They would be prohibitively costly and possibly
inefficient as well. For this reason, we will not require a
filtration system to be installed.
_ It will be necessary for your engineers to design an air moving
and exhaust system that will very efficiently remove exhaust
gases from the underground parking areas. Especially at Aspen's
high altitude, carbon monoxide should not be allowed to build up
in this structure.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call this
office.
cc: Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Dunlop
Environmental Health Director
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925 -2020
ASPEN T70LT1-,1T ATT:? PUD
FLOOR AREA AND FLOOR AREA RATIO ANALYSIS
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
Anrri1 _1.0, 1.�'On
LOT
1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE
1.
Lot area excluding vacated rights- of -way.1
'211,254 s.f.
2.
Lot area including vacated rights -of -way.
241,107 s.f.
3.
Proposed external Floor area.2
310,275 s.f.
4.
Allowable e. ternal. floor area unc,cr existing
zoning excluding vacated rights- of- way.
220,309 s.f_.
L -1 floor area
(21,009 s.f. n 1:1 FAR) _ 21,089
s.f.
L -2 floor area
(172,112 s.f. n 1: 1 FAIT) _ ,172,112
s.f.
CL floor area
(18,054 s.f. @ 2-:1 FAR) = 36,108
s.f.
5.
Allowable internal. PAP, under existing zoning
excluding vacated rights- of- waN,,.3
1.09:1
2 ?9,309 s.f. floor area /211,2_54� s.f. lot
area
6.
Allowable external floor area under existing
zoning including vacated rights -of -way.
263, 74 s.f.
L -1. floor area
(26,368 s.f. n 1 :1. PAR) = 26,36^
s.f.
L -2 floor area
(192,172 s.f. 1:1 FAR) = 1032,172
s.f.
CL floor area
( 22,567 s.f. 0 2 :1 FT -,r) = 45,139
s.f.
7.
Allowable external PAP uncae•r ex sting zoning
including vacated: rights- of -w_-y.
1.09:1
263,674 s.f. floor area/ ?41,107 s.f. lot
area
8.
Proposed external. FAR excluding vacated
rights-of -way.
1.47:1
31.0,275 s.f. floor area /%11,254 s.f. lot
area
9.
Proposed eternal FAR including vacated
rights -of -way.
1.29:1
310,275 s.f. floor area /241,107 s.f. lot
area
LOT
2 SUMMIT PLACE CONDOMINIUMS
1.
Lot area.
5,360 s.f.
2..
Allowable external PAP under exi.stinc, zoning.
1:1
3.
Allowable floor area under existing zo -ing.
5,360 s.f.
4.
Proposed external floor area-4
-7 ,f66C s.f.
5.
Proposed', external FAR.
1.43:1
Page 2
LOT
3 TOP OF MILL CONDOMINIUMS
1.
Lot area excluding vacated right- of -way.5
240,128 s.f.
2.
Lot area including vacated right -of- -way.
242,x;13 s.f.
3.
Lot area excluding vacated right -of -way
and land zoned Conservation.6
135r128 s.f.
4.
Lot area including vacated right -of -way
and excluding land zoned Conservation.
1.37,313 s.f.
5.
Proposed external floor area.
101,000 s.f.
6.
Allowable external floor. area under existing
zoning_
excluding vacated right -of -way and land zoned
Conservation.7
72,000 s.f.
L -2 floor area
(45,000 s.f. 2 1:1 FAR) = 45,000
s.f.
R -15 (PUD) (L) floor area
(90,128 s.f. lot
area /15,000 s.f./lot-
approximately 6 ci.ngle-
family lots)
6 lots r approximately
4,500 s.f. floor area /lot = 27,000
s.f.
7.
Allowable external FAP under existing zoning
excluding
vacated right -of -way and land zoned Conservation.
+0.53:1
72,000 s.f. floor area /135,128 s.f. lot
area
8.
Allowable external floor area under existing
zoning
including vacated right -of -way and excluding
land zoned Conservation.
_s- 72,170 s.f.
L -2 floor area
(45,000 0 1:1 FAR) _ 45,000
s.f.
R -15 (PUD) (L) floor area
(92,813 ..f. lot
area /15,000 s.f. /lot =
approximately 6 single-
family lots)
5 lots 0 approximately
4,500 s.f. floor area/lot - 22,500
s.f.
1 lot P approximately
4,670 s.f. floor area = 4,670
s.f.
9.
Allowable external FAR. under existing zoning,
including vacated right- of -laay and excluding
land zoned Conservation.
+0.52:1.
72,170 s.f. floor area/1.37,81.3 s,.f. lot
area
10.
Proposed external. FAR' excluding right -of -way
and land zoned Conservation.
0.75:1
101,000 s.f. floor area /135,128 s.f. lot
area
TOTAL ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
1.
Lot area excluding vacated rights -of -way.
478,342 s.f.
Page
3
510,880 s.f.
1.1.
Proposed external FAT: including right -of -way
and excluding land zoned Conservation.
0.73:1
4.
1.01,000 s.f. floor area/1.37,813 s.f. lot area
12.
Proposed external FAR excluding right- of- wa -, ; ;1
405,880 s.f.
5.
and including land zoned Conservation.
0.42:1
6.
101,000 s.f. floor area /240,128 s.f. lot area
13.
Proposed external FAR including rights --of -way
and lane. zoned Conservation.
0.42 :1
7.
101,000 s.f. floor area /242:813 s.f. lot area
LOT
4 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUMS
1.
Loot area.
21,600 s.f.
2.
Proposed external floor area.
19,260 s.f.
3.
Allowable external floor area under existing L -2
zoning.
21,600 s.f.
21,600 s.f . (? l : 1 FAR
+362,804 s.f.
4.
Proposed external FAR.
19,260 s.f. floor area /21,600 s.f. lot area
0.89:1
TOTAL ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
1.
Lot area excluding vacated rights -of -way.
478,342 s.f.
2.
hot area including vacated rights- of -wa..
510,880 s.f.
3.
Lot area excluding vacated rights -of -way rind
land zoned Conservation.
373,342 s.f.
4.
Lot area including vacated rights -of -way and
excluding land zoned Conservation.
405,880 s.f.
5.
Proposed external floor area.`
438,203 s.f.
6.
Allowable external floor area under existing zoning_,,
excluding vacated rights- of -way and land zoned
Conservation.
i_328,269 s.f.
7.
Allowable external FAIR uncler existing zoning
excluding vacated rights- of -cvay an,_': land zoned
Conservation:.
x-0.88:1
3287259 s.f. floor area/373,342 s.f. lot area
8.
Allowable external floor area under existing zoning
including vacated rights -of -way and excluding
land toner.', Conservation.
+362,804 s.f.
9.
Allowable external FAR under existing zoning
includinn vacated rights -of -way and excluding
land zoned Conservation.
+0.89:1.
362,804 s.f. .floor area /405,2^0 s.f. lot area
10.
Proposed external. FAR excluding righty -of -way
and land zoned Conservation.
1.17:1
438,203 s.f. floor area /373.'42 s.f. lot_ area
Page 4
1.1. Proposed external FAR including rights -of -way
and excluding land zoned Conservation. 1.08:1
433,203 s.f. floor area /405,080 s.f. lot area
12. Proposed external. FAT' excluding rights -of -way
and including land zoned Conservation. 0.92:1
438,203 s.f. floor area /478,342 s.f. lot area
13. Proposed external FAR including rights -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 0.86:1
438,203 s.f. floor area /510,880 s.f. lot area
Footnotes
1 22,654 s.f. of Dean Street and 7,199 s.f. of Lawn Street.
2 Conceptual PUD /subdivision approval (subject to r.evie.-q of remainder
of PUD, City Council. Resolution Teo. 84 - -11, Series of 1924) .
i-1hile the Municipal Code rakes no specific reference to the exclusion
of vacated lands in FAR calculations, Section 24 -2.5 states in part
that in determining land available for development, there
shall be excluded from the calculation of allowable density or required
open space those areas of the development tract acquired by vacation."
Density (i.e., dwelling units /acre) with' respect to lodge uses is
a function of allowable FAR vahich in turn is a function of site area.
It ,,could appear to follox•i, therefore, that vacated lands are excluded
from the calculation of allo,,-,able FAP, for lodge uses since they must
be excluded from the calculation of allowable density "in determining
land available for development." Substantiation of this interpretation,
however, falls within the area of Council policy.
4 Approximately 5,112 s.f. currently exist on Lot 2.
5 2,685 s.f. of South Pill Street.
6 105,000 s.f. of land above the 8040 elevation is zoned Conservation.
7 In those cases in which a buil.dincr site is located in more than
one zone district, a structure's maximum eternal. floor area is the
sum of the allowable external floor areas for those portions of the
site in each zone district, provided, however, that the structure
or use in question is permittedd in each zone Oistrir_t and that each
district has an applicable external floor area limitation. Lodge
uses are prohibited in the C, Conservation zone district. As result,
that portion of the site zone,' Conservation theoretically, could
not be used for purposes of calculating external floor area for structures
or uses permitted elsewhere on the property. Furthermore, there
is no external floor area limitation imposed on the Conservation
zone c.3istrict and, therefore, no ability, to aggregate, allowable external.
floor area as outlinela above. From -preact:icGl perspective, inasmuch
as external FAR is a numerical statement of the relationship of the
size of a. structure to its building site, it would seem logical in
mixed use PUD's to compare total }wilding square footage to total
building site. The Maunicipal. Code is essentially silent. ,-ith respect
to the above issues, and, therefore, any interpretation is subject
to Council policy.
8 The 90,120 s.f. lot area assumes, for purposes of this analysis,
that the 14,500 s.f. of City -owned lard will be conveyed to the applicants
and rezoned from Public to 7 -15 (PTJD) (L) . While the 90,128 s.f. R-
15 (PUD) (L) parcel could also be subdivided in a single- far:-tily /duplex
lot configuration, the subdivision depicted produces the maximum
allowable external floor area and has, therefore, been uses for compar-
ison purposes.
Page 5
9 Conceptual. PUD /subdivision approval (subject to review of remainder
of PUD, City Council_ Resolution tdo. 84-11, Series of 1924).
`
� \
TOP OP
POTENTIAL UNIT BDILDODT
Aapcn/Pit in Plannin9 O-F fice
,�pcil IO/ 19D0
LOT 3 TOP OF MILL
1. Lot area,
(PIJID) (L) = 75,628 S.f.
L-2 = 45,0 0 0 S. -f,
Public = I4,500 o.f.
Conservation = I05'0 00 s.f.
240,128 o.f.
`
2. - Pot ential unit boildoOt.
r.-I5 (pup) (L)
3 .I.oI-)ler lots
� 20,000 s.f./lot = 6 units
3 single-family
lots C approx.
I5,000 S,-Lr'/lot = 2 ooitn
'
L-2
4515,00O n.f. lot
rcea/3,0OO s.�.
--Floor lnoc acea/unit 2 = ±I5 units
Conservation
&oplicaots/ 94,000
o T?accel3 = I unit
City's I1,000 S.f.
paZCeI3 = l Onit
--------
TOTAL ±25 units
I
Assumes I4,500 o.f. Public parcpl z22one(11 to R-IS (L) .
3yT0 minimum lot area rncfuicement for ci�gIe-�a�il�'/�uplcz units in
the L-2 zone district; oombec o-F units aIIn,/ed is a 37unCtinn of unit
size and aIIonabI8 floor area. ��snumsS 3/000 s. J-. n� �Inoz actea
oe[ dwelling unit as prOpooed hn aI�I?liCaot�,
alI�ms one sioqle-��m�I� by on a non-coDfozminq lot of record.
• l• U
/ /07
Z 7e-
i
o�
jam• _ /G -
s
O
l 14.
IA
r �' �' �'� - -- - �'�G�l.�ti C CI' � L. 5� G� � C' �'j7/LG> • •., G� -4G(S' —
•
ISM
•
I hereby certify that on this J(= day of
198, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing
was deposited in the United States mail, first -class postage prepaid,
to the adjacent property_ owners as indicated on the attached list of
adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by
the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice.
Na -rell
M
I
x:
Alpenblick Townhouses (A Condominium) 20 Units
Record Address: Alpenblick Townhouses Condominium Association
99 Equitable Bldg.
Denver, Colorado
Managed by: Condominium Rental Management, Inc.
747 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen Inn Apartment Condominium 11 Units
(There is no record address of the Condominium Association in the Condominium
Declaration, therefore the notices will be sent to the current record owners)
Bob J. Scarborough- Units 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D & 3D
8 as op n t III,, L. 15uWC L(.)&LP
Aspen -^C'o` ora o $2'M
David G. Elmore - Unit 3B
10001 East Evans
Denver, Colorado 80231
Robert Prentis Morris - Units 3A & 3C
Box 9069
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Hans B. & June Cantrup - Unit 1C
Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dolomite Villas .
Record Address: Dolomite.'Villas Condominium Association
Box 2678
Aspen, Colorado 81612 .
Current Address: 650 South Monarch
Aspen, Colorado 81611
James S. & Meryl N. Hearst
Box 67
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Theodore T. & Mary E. Armstrong
Box 1524
Aspen, Colorado 81612
John J. Dolinsek & Frank L. Dolinsek, Jr.
Box 275
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Herbert P. Balderson & Joseph B. Cabell
708 Spruce Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-5-
12 Units
Canada House of Aspen, Ltd.
411 South Monarch Street
.Aspen, Colorado 81611
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
}j.
Mountain Chalet Enterprises, Inc.
333 East Durant
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Max E. & Jayne Frances Freeman
329 Lake Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Preston H. & Claudia R. Hill
3910 South Hillcrest Drive
Denver, Colorado 80237
Effie M. Ecklund Lerner, 'Trustee
221 North Kentworth Avenue
Oak Park, Illinois 60302
Christopher Carvell & Stephen Berlin
2553 Dexter StreeC
Denver, Colorado 80203
Margery A. Kleiner
Box 4191
,Aspen, Colorado 81.612
John P. Kleiner
327 Bartlett Court
Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701
Luke W. Anthony.
1601 East Mississippi
Denver, Colorado 80210
Dated: April 30, 1984
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. �, „
•
L, "Melville"
Lots,17 and 18
Block 2 _
DEAN'S ADDITION
M. "Hillside Lodge"
Lots A and B 1
Block 91
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
N. "Bass"
Lots 9 and 10
Block 3"
CONNOR'S ADDITION
PROPERTY OWNERS
Aztec Condominiums
Record Address: Aztec Condominium Association, Inc.
131 East Durant
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The Durant Galena Condominiums
Record Address: The Durant Galena Condominium Association, Inc.
c/o Steve Marcus
Box 1709
Aspen, Colorado 81612
North of Nell Condominiums
Record Address: North of Nell Condominium Association
Box NN
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Current Address: 555 East Durant
Aspen,.Colorado 81611
Tipple Inn Condominiums
Record Address: Tipple Inn Condominium Association
Board of Governors
747 Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Managed by: Condominium Rental Management, Inc.
747 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-4-
6 Units
2 Units
59 Units
12 Units
�4
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publ
November 20, 1984, at a meeting to begin
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in
S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider
Preliminary GMP /Subdivision Submission for
PUD.
is hearing will be held on
at 5:00 P. M. , bef ore the
City Council Chambers, 130
the Aspen Mountain Lodge
the lodge portion of their
. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020, ext. 224.
s /Perry Harvey
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 18, 1984.
City of Aspen Account.
El
MEMORANDUM
a
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health Department
Aspen Consolidation Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
Building Department Zoning Enforcement Officer
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision
DATE: October 11, 1984
Enclosed for your review
is the Aspen Mountain Lodge
Preliminary
GMP /Subdivision submission
for the lodge portion of
the
project.
Please review this material and return your referral comments
to Alan
Richman of the Planning
Office, no later than November
51
1984, in
order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare
for
a public
hearing before the Pitkin
County P &Z on November 20th.
Thank you.
• i ti.�
a
aspen,,colorado 81611
30 _1i-925 _220
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 5, 1984.
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD /Subdivision: Donation of Approxi-
mately 40,931 Square Feet of Koch Lumber Property
Annexed is a letter dated September 21, 1984, formally and
irrevocably offering to donate to the City, as a charitable gift,
the 40,931 square feet of the Koch Lumber Property.-which will
remain following the land exchange involving the City -owned par-
cels at the top of Mill Street.
Please note that the offer is contingent upon:
( 1 ) the City obtaining, at its sole cost and expense, an
appraisal from a local MIA appraiser.of the current fair market
value of the property to be donated,. assuming that the property
was put to its highest and residential use under present zoning
and other applicable land use regulations; and -
(2) dedicating the entire Koch Property to the perpetual use
and enjoyment of the public.for parks /o -ben space /recreational pur-
poses; and
(3) the closing of the Koch Lumber Property in connection
with the Cantrup bankruptcy.
As you know, we are scheduled to meet next week with the legal
counsel and other planning representatives of the applicants to
begin the process of preparing an acceptable PUD /Subdivision
agreement. Assuming you will have a more informed. idea of the
intricacies of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project after the meeting,
I would thereafter appreciate your suggestions with regard to the
mechanics and time of accepting the proposed donation. In this
regard, I have appended a "rough draft" resolution. of acceptance.
PJT /mc
Attachment
cc: City __Co.uncil
Pla,nning_`Director
City Engineer
P
DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 2900
685 SEVENTEENTH STREET
OENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 795-8000
TFLECOPIER (30:,1 295.8261
MONTANA OFFICE
6UITE 1400
175 4ORTH 27TH STREET
fiILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TEI- EPHONE (AO6) 252.2166
TELECOPIER (AO6) 252 -1669
ARTHUR C. DAILY
E
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
HQ"L.AND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3478
September 21, 1984
E-7,
Re: Offer of Land Donation
Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members:
WASHINGTON, 0. C. OFFICE
SUITE 1200
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C, 20008
TELEPHONE 1202) 4815 -7340
TELECOPI ER (202)468-%354
WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE*500
2020 CAREY AVENUE
CHEYENNE,WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONE (307) 632 -2160
TELECOPIER (307) 778 -8175
S. E.DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
TELEPHONE (303) 741 -1226
By letter to the Aspen City Attorney dated March 1, 1984, the
owners of the Aspen Mountain Lodge P.U.T.). /Subdivision project pro-
posed to trade to the City of Aspen approximately 21,084 square
feet of the "Koc:h Lumber" property (together with several ancillary
Considerations) in exchange for certain City -owned lands located
within the Planned Unit Development area and described as Lots 7,
Or 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, Capitol Hill Addition, containing
approximately 20,860 square feet. Unde,. the terms of City Council
Resolution No. 23 (Series of 1984), this land trade proposal was
Consented to and adopted by the City.
Following-the consummation of the above described land
exchange, the owners will still hold title to roughly 40,931 square
feet of the Koch Lumber property, and the comment has been made
from time to time by interested citizens and by several Council
members that if the City owned all of the property (ie. the trade
parcel and the owners' remaining parcel) it could develop the area
into a truly fine public park and recreational facility. We are
informed, however, that the City does not have sufficient funds
- available at the present time to purchase the remainder of this
property from the owners.
The balance of the Koch Lumber property is currently zoned
R-15 (residential), and is obviously susceptible of several devel-
opment alternatives. The owners have concluded, however, that
their planned hotel, lodging and residential development activities
on other properties within the City will demand their full energies
and resources for years to come, and that the interests of the com-
munity will be best served by the dedication of the entire Koch
(lumber property for public open space uses.
. • HOLLAND R HART •
Aspen'City Council
September 21, 1984 ,
Page 2
s
Accordingly, the owners hereby formally and irrevocably offer
to donate to the City as a.charitable gift the 40,931 square feet
of the Koch Lumber property which will remain in their ownership
following the land exchange discussed above, upon the following_
terms and conditions:
1. The initiation and completion of the "lot split" or sub -
division procedures necessary to divide the Koch Lumber parcel into
two (2) legally independent tracts of land,.along the internal com-
mon boundary described in Council Resolution No. 23 (Series of
1984). This formal division of the property will be necessary in
any case in order to consummate the land trade in a valid manner.
2. The obtaining by the City, at.its sole cost and expense,
of an appraisal from a local M.A.I. appraiser of the current fair
market value of the portion of the Koch Lumber property to be
donated to the City, assuming that such property were to be put to
its highest and best residential use under present zoning and other
applicable land use regulations.
3. The taking by the City of such steps as are necessary to
dedicate the entire Koch Lumber property to the perpetual use and
enjoyment of the public for park /open space /recreational purposes.
4. The closing of the owners' purchase of the Koch Lumber
property from the Cantrup Bankruptcy Estate.
Assuming the satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, they.`
owners hereby commit to convey the remainder of the Koch Lumber-`.
property to the City by Special Warranty peed, free and clear of
liens and encumbrances, no later than sixty (60) days following the
consummation of the above described land exchange.
We would appreciate being advised as promptly as possible as
to the City's position with respect to this offer.
Very truly yours,
Arthur C. Daily
for HOLLAND & HART
ACD /sr
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq..
City Attorney
f k�
k 1
RESOLUTION 140. r.
(Series of 1984)
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION OF APPROXIMATELY 40,931 SQUARE
FEET OF THAT PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF
PITKIN, COLORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE KOCH LUMBER PROPERTY
WHEREAS, an.offer to donate to the City an approximate 40,931
square foot portion of that property commonly known as the Koch
Lumber property has been tendered to the City in the form of a
letter from Arthur C. Daily, attorney for the owners of the afore-
said parcel, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires.to accept the aforesaid
donation as described in the proposed deed, a copy of which is
annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B ".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City of Aspen hereby accepts the donation of approx-
imately 40,931 square feet of that property located within the
City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, commonly known as the
Koch Lumber parcel and more specifically described in that pro-
posed .deed annexed hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhi-
bit "B ".
Dated: , 1984.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do .
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held , 1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk' '-
3`796
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 24, 1984
Councilman Blomquist said Cole's plans where done when there was a different concept about
the space needs for city hall. Councilman Blomquist said he would like bids on this.
Councilwoman Walls pointed out there are people in town, rather than Glenwood Springs, who
could do the work. Mayor Stirling agreed Council should know what the space requirements
are, and these are related to the management audit. Councilman Knecht said he does not i
want to spend any money on city hall other than the space that will be vacated.
Mayor Stirling moved to direct the city manager to solicit bids for this project tied to
divulging what the space needs are; seconded by Councilman Blomquist.
i
City Manager Schilling said the building department moving djwnstairs could be handled in-
house but the city needs to fix some major dysfunctions in the building, especially in
the various parts of the finance. There are high level finance employees who are working
in halls and constantly interrupted.' Courcilman Collins said the Council should decide
the level of expense and remodel they want to have done. Schilling agreed he is not i
interested in spending a lot of money on this building until Council decides where they
want city hall.
Mayor Stirling withdrew.his motion. it
BOARDS AND COMMISSION REPORT
City Clerk Kathryn Koch reported she had researched all the Boards. There are three
expired terms on P & Z and HPC; two on the Wheeler Board. There are two vacancies on the
Clean Air Advisory Board and one on the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. Ms. Koch
reported the Mayor has written letters to members whose terms have expired, and will
advertise the vacancies.
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
Councilman Knecht moved to approve the renewals of R. Pea's; O'Leary's; Roaring Fork & Spoon
Aspen Art Museum; Nick's fresh Seafood; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Mayor Stirling said he would like to add to this agenda the deadline of submittal for
preliminary plans for the Aspen Mountain PUD or have Council continue this meeting until
right before the budget hearing September 25 at 3:00 p.m.
Mayor Stirling moved to add this item to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Knecht.
Councilman Knecht, Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Blomquist, Collins and Walls
opposed. Motion NOT carried. f
Mayor Stirling moved to continue this meeting to
Councilman Knecht. Councilmembers Walls, Knecht
Blomquist and Collins opposed. Motion carried.
Council left Chambers at 9:30 p.m.
II
3:00 p.m. September 25, 1985; seconded by
and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers
} J
Kathryn S. och, City Clerk
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 25, 1984
Mayor Stirling opened the meeting at 3:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Knecht and Collins
present.
City Attorney Taddune said there is a question on interpretation of the procedural require-
ments of the PUD of the Code. Taddune said he feels the preliminary plat application can
be filed after the approval of the second resolution, which approved the residential
component. The applicants are questioning if they have to file preliminary within six
months of the first resolution. The city is taking the position that no construction can
start until the whole project has been approved, so it is reasonable to conclude the
applicants have six months from the second resolution rather than the first. �I
i
Art Daily, representing the applicant, said Council's position is that there was no
conceptual approval of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project until final action was taken by
Council. However, the first resolution on the lodge portion contained a six month deadline
for filing preliminary. Daily said he did not feel that was the intent and would like an
amendment saying the preliminary submittal is due six months from the date of final
approval by Council. Taddune said he feels this would be consistent with his interpretation
of the phased processing. Mayor Stirling asked if this action would put the city at a
disadvantage. Taddune said this does not put anyone at a disadvatange to take as much
time as necessary to review a project.
Sunny Vann, planning director, reminded Council when they were discussing the first
resolution for the lodge portion of the project, Council added that conceptual approval of
the lodge was not valid until the rest of the project was reviewed and approved. Vann
did not remove the six months clause in the first resolution. Vann agreed the deadline
for preliminary submittal should be six months from the date of adoption of the employee
housing resolution. Vann said all three resolutions consitutes Council approval of the
entire PUD.
Councilman Knecht moved preliminary submittal becomes due six months from the third
resolution; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
Collins. Motion carried.
3795
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 24, 1984
thing that would prohibit a parking lot. Councilman Blomquist said this property is being
purchased with the land fund for open space. Councilman Blomquist said the city should
continue the railroad tie wall and stop the cars from parking there. Summers said the
staff is just suggesting this as an alternative as there is not enough parking in town.
Councilman Blomquist said this is the way the impound lot got located on the Rio Grande
property and he does not want to waste priceless public property. Councilman Knecht said
as a temporary lot, it is a good idea. Councilman Knecht suggested seeing if the First
National Bark would pay for this. Councilman Blomquist said this is creating a private
j parking lot on public property. Summers said the staff felt this would be a good use for
I property whose ultimate use has not been decided.
Councilman Blomquist moved to disapprove the proposal and build a fence to keep cars from
parking on public park; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilmembers Blomquist and
Collins in favor; Councilmembers Knecht, Walls and Mayor Stirling opposed. Motion NOT
carried.
Councilman Knecht moved to do this proposal, approach the First National Bank and have
them pay for it but it will be public parking; seconded by Mayor Stirling.
Councilman Knecht said if the bank doesn't want to pay for it, then leave the property
the way it is. Councilman Blomquist said the city charges businesses for using the mall,
and the city should be charging for use of public land if it is used for private sector
purposes.
Councilmembers Knecht, Walls and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Collins and
Blomquist opposed. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1984 - Appropriations
Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance #30, Series of 1984; seconded by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #30
- (Series of 1984)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $49,475; TRANSFERRING
$8,000 FROM THE LAND FUND TO THE GOLF COURSE FUND; APPROPRIATING GOLF COURSE
FUND EXPENDITURES OF $13,000; RECOGNIZING ICE GARDEN FUND REVENUE OF $72,000'
APPROPRIATING ICE GARDEN EXPENDITURES OF $72,000 was read by the city clerk
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 1984, on first reading; seconded
by Councilman. Blomquist. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Blomquist, aye; Collins, aye;
Knecht, aye; Walls, aye; Mayor Stirling, aye. Motion carried.
REVENUE SHARING PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Finance Director Sheree Sonfield told Council
they must have a hearing on the use of the federal funds from revenue sharing. Ms. Sonfielc
said these funds must be used for any service that benefits the general public. In the
past, the staff has reported using 70 per cent for police protection and 30 per cent for
general administration.
Councilman Blomquist moved to use the projected $98,000 of revenue sharing funds for
public parks in 1985. Motion DIES for lack of second.
Councilwoman Walls moved t0 use $98,000 projected revenue sharing funds for police
protection purposes; seconded by Councilman Knecht.
Councilman Blomquist said the city should not rely on these funds, and police protection
should be funded.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Collins moved to continue the public hearing on the budget to October 9, 1984;
seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #31, SERIES OF 1984 - Elective Water Conservation District Board
Councilman Blomquist said the judges currently make the appointments and is not sure of
the advantage of having this be an elected office. Mayor Stirling pointed out when
members are appointed it is like taxation without representation; also there is no provisioi
for geography, which might leave some areas unrepresented. Mayor Stirling said water is
one of the most important resources in Colorado.
Councilman Knecht moved to approve Resolution #31, Series of 1984; seconded by Councilwoman
Walls.
Councilman Collins said the Council has not had the opportunity to hear the other side of
the arguments. Councilman Collins said this seems to be very lopsided.
Councilmembers Knecht, Walls and Mayor Stirling in favor, Councilmembers Blomquist and
Collins-opposed. Motion carried.
CONTRACT /SPACE ANALYSIS
Councilman Blomquist asked if any other firm had been asked for a proposal. Assistant
City Manager Ron Mitchell said when Council approved the move of the police department,
he spoke with Greg Cole, who did the original design on the assumption he could get the
job done faster because he is familiar with city hall. Councilman Blomquist said he feels
the city manager should do an analysis of space needs before it gets to the architecture.
3775
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 1984
Vann told Council the Ute City Place is a multi - family structure and is subject to the
city's subdivision regulation. The conditions in section 3 are from the prior subdivision
review of the project with minor changes. Condition #2 the engineering department requests
the applicant to re- evaluate the parking access before preliminary. Mayor Stirling pointed
out condition #7 requires the applicant to do.things before preliminary that cannot be done.
Vann agreed to change conditions 1, 3, and 4. Vann said the Council will have to reconfirm
the rezoning of this property to RBO at final plat. Vann said this project could be
constructed as a free market project with the RBO right now. This proposal is for a smaller
footprint with better parking and better access. This project will be within the FAR,
although there will be more dwelling units on the property. This application is for 100
per cent employee housing, rather than free market and employee housing. Council suggested
having a condition that the applicant receive a RBO overly rezoning for Ute City Place.
City Attorney Taddune said Council has to retain the prerogative to consider any input
disclosed during the public hearing process. I
Councilman Knecht moved to accept Section 3 addition condition #8 on the rezoning issue
and taking 1, 3, and 4 so these conditions do not have to be physically in place before
preliminary review; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
Margaret Albouy read a statement to Council regarding employee housing. Mrs. Albouy
recommended Council shift the focus of housing to the kind of facilities needed for seasonal
employees to provides for all their basic needs under one roof. Mrs. Albouy said the city
should encourage seasonal employees to be truly seasonal. This facility could be used by
the music students in the summer.
Councilman Blomquist moved that staff bring the resolution back to Council for review of
the specific language changes; seconded by Councilman Collins.
Councilmembers Walls, Knecht and Mayor Stirling opposed; Councilmembers Collins and
Blomquist in favor. Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Resolution #27, Series of 1984, with the outlined amendments
ai.d have the Mayor sign it; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. Councilmembers Knecht, Walls
and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Blomquist and Collins opposed. Motion carried.
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD - Request for Staged PUD Review
sunny Vann, planning directcr, reminded Council the applicants submitted the conceptual
stage in two parts; the lodge component, and the residential component. There are two
different dates in the Code for lodge GMP and for residential GMP. Vann said after
conceptual, the planning office wanted the project to come together for preliminary and
final. Vann said it has become difficult for the applicants to follow this course and they
have requested the preliminary.PUD be separated as in conceptual. The main reason is the
time is has taken to complete the conceptual process. Vann said staff has concluded there
is the flexibility in the Code to allow this. There are some drawbacks, such as not seeing
the entire project. Vann said the applicants have presented arguements to proceed in a
staged review.in order to start construction next spring.
Mayor Stirling said the benefits of putting the application together at preliminary are
full disclosure, proper notice, the interrelationship of the two components, clarity,
avoiding duplication, and making the process less tiring. Councilman Blomquist said during
conceptual review of the hotel, the Council inserted a provision that the hotel was not
approved until the whole PUD was approved. Councilman Blomquist said he feels the prelimin-
ary can use the same step -by -step process. Councilman Blomquist said he is in favor of
staging the review, and there is no preliminary approval until all stages are through.
This will not proceed to final plat until all the steps have been met and the entire project
reviewed. Doremus said staging this review will save more than one season, which is a
benefit to the community. Councilman Collins said he would like a schedule of approvals,
drawings, construction, etc. Councilman Collins said he throught the object was to have
the entire project built at once and to have it fit in with the lodge improvement district.
Doremus said there have been problems because of the bankruptcy; the applicants have not
owned the property nor had conceptual approval. Doremus said now they have conceptual
approval, they will provide a schedule.
Councilman Knecht moved to allow the applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD to phase or stage
the submission and review of their preliminary PUD /subdivision application; seconded by
Councilwoman Walls. Councilman Blomquist requested the motion be amended to add, "provided
any preliminary stage shall not be approved until the preliminary for the entire PUD has
been approved ". Councilmembers Knecht and Walls accepted the amendment.
Doremus said the amendment is fine if the implication is that the city will review and
comment on the various stages. Councilman Blomquist agreed with this. Vann said he would
like direction from Council that this addresses only preliminary PUD submission. Vann said
this approval does not automatically guarantee the applicant's right to piecemeal subsequent
reviews, such as final of building permit. Council agreed. Mayor Stirling said he feels
a staged review would benefit the community.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1984 - Nugget Rezoning
Colette Penne, planning office, told Council when the class action rezoning for L -3 lodges
was done, the legal description for the Nugget missed the east half of lots E and O.
h
Councilman Blomquist moved to read Ordinance #25, Series of 1984; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #25
(Series of 1984)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING TO TO LODGE PRESERVATION (L -3) THE EAST ONE -HALF OF
LOTS E AND 0, AND ALL OF LOTS F, G, H, I, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 58, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ALSO KNOWN AS 110 WEST MAIN STREET was read by the
city clerk
sFF,!
�.J
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Harold Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain PUD - Request
Application
DATE: August 27, 1984
BACKGROUND
•
to Phase Preliminary PUD
As you will recall, the conceptual PUD /subdivision application for the
Aspen Mountain PUD was reviewed in two stages - the lodge component of
the PUD followed by the residential component. This phased review of
the conceptual PUD was dictated primarily by the Applicants' need to
compete in two separate GMP competitions which were held on two
separate dates. With the completion of Council's review of the
conceptuals submissions, the Applicants' attention has now turned to
the preparation of the preliminary PUD /subdivision application.
As outlined in the attached letter from John Doremus dated August 2,
1984, the Applicants have formerly requested to phase or stage the
preliminary portion of their PUD application. Specifically, the
Applicants wish to submit and initiate the review of the lodge portion
of Y: pg.': r"U"E prior to submission of the preliminary PUD /subdivision
application for the PUD's residential component. The Applicants'
principal argument in favor of separating the review of the lodge
component of the project from the residential component is the urgency
to make financial and scheduling arrangements in order to move ahead
with construction in a timely manner. A more detailed discussion of
this argument is provided in John's August 21st memorandum, which is
also attached.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION
It is my understanding that the Applicants propose to submit a prelim-
inary PUD /subdivision application for the lodge portion of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. Where necessary or appropriate, this application would
contain information relating to the entire PUD, if such information
were required to review the lodge portion of the project. For example,
utility issues of the entire project would be submitted in conjunction
with the lodge portion. The preliminary PUD /subdivision application
for the residential component of the project would be submitted
approximately 30 to 60 days following the lodge submittal. As a
result, any outstanding information pertaining to the remainder of the
PUD would be available for. consideration during the formal review of
the lodge component. The entire PUD would subsequently track simul-
taneously through the final PUD /subdivision review process.
With respect to the staging of PUD applications, it is generally
agreed that the Code is somewhat vague and, therefore, subject to
interpretation. As Paul Taddune points out in his attached memorandum,
achieving the purposes and concepts of the PUD regulations should
reasonably entail the practical aspects of making a project feasible.
From this perspective, it would appear appropriate for the City to
take into account the various costs and /or delays associated with
requiring all of the components of the PUD to be reviewed at the same
time. Paul further points out that if the developer seeks accommo-
dations in the form of a staged review, and asserts that they are
necessary to bring the project on line in a timely and cost effective
manner, it is worth remembering that it is the developer who ultimately
shoulders the risk of judicial review and court reversal of the City's
accommodations.
® •
The obvious drawback to a stage preliminary review is the possibility
of arguments raised by opponents of 'the project that the resulting
hearing process is not comprehensive, that the City has deviated
from its own regulations, that insufficient information is available
to make enlightened decisions, and that the citizens are confused by
the complexity of the staged review. Given the fact that the PUD
has received conceptual approval, these concerns must be weighed
against the desire to facilitate the project's progress and to minimize
unnecessary costs and delays.
ALTERNATIVES
Councils' alternative courses of action with respect to this issue are
relatively straightforward. Council may interpret the Code to provide
for the staged review of PUD applications and allow the Applicants to
proceed with a staged preliminary PUD /subdivision submission for the
Aspen Mountain PUD. In the event Council chooses not to accommodate
the Applicants, you may interpret the Code to preclude such an approach
and require the Applicants to submit a preliminary PUD /subdivision
application for the entire PUD.
RECOMMENDATION
Should you wish to accommodate the Applicants, I believe the Planning
Office can adequately review a staged preliminary PUD submission.
Those issues which affect the entire PUD and, therefore, must be
reviewed as part of the lodge component can be identified and the
Applicants have assured us that the necessary information will be
available. Given the obvious tradeoffs involved between the public
perception of the process and the desirability of expediting the
review of the Aspen Mountain PUD, I believe a decision with respect to
this issue more properly falls within the realm of Council respon-
sibility. Both Paul and myself have reviewed the applicable language
of the Code and believe that sufficient flexibility exists to allow
Council to address the Applicants' request.
PROPOSED NOTION
Should you concur with the Applicants' request, the appropriate motion
would be as follows:
"I move to allow the Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD to
phase or stage the submission and review of their preliminary PUD/
subdivision application."
Q
Dore us &company
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: John Doremus
DATE: August 21, 1984
RE: Addendum to letter. dated August 2, 1984
With respect to the scheduling aspects for the proposed hotel,
we.noted in our letter that our objective is to begin opera-
tion of the hotel portion of the PUD beginning the 1986 -87
winter. season. In order to accomplish this, construction must
begin early in the spring of 1985, therefore a ground breaking
date of May,lst has been set. Two critical elements must oc-
cur by that date. One is a building permit from the City of
Aspen, which may take as long as two months. Second; bids
must be completed and negotiated and the financing arrange-
ments confirmed, and this process will also take at least two
months.
The foregoing tells us that construction documents, (working
drawings), for the building envelope and skin must be complete
by Parch lst. The chief architect for the project, responsible
for the construction documents, advises that it will take five
months to generate the required drawings which means a start
date of October 1st. Construction documents require approval
of Preliminary Drawings which the client can only give when
the City Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the
Preliminary Submission and the City Council has approved the
Revised GMP application.
It is clear to all of us that the October lst deadline is al-
ready in jeopardy and that wewill have to take extraordinary
measures to achieve our schedule.
JD /ght
e •
CITY 9 ftr o QASPEN
0
130 s"outW g"46lena street
aSPe coldia`do' -84611
�3QJ 92,5 1020' !
AUG 1 3 M
'I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 10, 1984
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: City Attorney
RE: John Doremus' August 2, 1984, Correspondence
I have the following thoughts on John Doremus' August 2, 1984,
letter.
1. John seems to be requesting a staged or phased consider-
ation of the preliminary review of the Aspen Mountain Project.
Although you and I discussed the possibility of giving final
approval within the meaning of the Municipal Code, it seems that
what John is suggesting in the last paragraph of his letter is
that the issues related to the entire PUD be considered on a
piecemeal basis and that most matters affecting the entire PUD
would be brought into clear focus'at the time the final plat was
prepared.
2. In the first instance, I think that the Planning Office
and the Planning and Zoning Commission should consider the plan-
ning "downside" in processing a staged application as John sug-
gests. Obviously, if neither the Planning Office nor the Planning
and Zoning Commission are inclined to recommend a phased consider-
ation there is no need for us to consider whether or not to permit
such a staged review even if legally feasible.
3. Please note the language in the second paragraph of
Section 24 -8.1 which provides that the provisions of this article
shall be interpretted to achieve the purposes listed in the pre-
ceding subsections (a) through (f). Naturally, achieving a bene-
ficial land use "promoting a greater variety in the type, design
and layout of buildings" and other concepts set forth in those
subsections should entail the practical aspects of making a pro-
ject feasible. I think it is appropriate for the City to take
into account the extreme cost of delay.
4. As we discussed, subsection (d) of Section 24 -8.5 pro-
vides that a building permit for any structure or permit to
Memorandum to Sunny Vann
August 10, 1984
Page Two
develop in any manner in a planned unit development shall be
issued only after the final development plan for such development
has been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council
and the applicant has complied with the subdivision regulations of
the City, Section 20 -1 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Interest-
ingly, the word "development" appears throughout our land use code
but is not defined. Depending on which way Council wants to go in
this fashion, the term "final development plan" might-be construed
as a plan for development which has been finally approved after
meeting all of the hearing requirements set forth in the PUD and
subdivision regulations. It is essential, in my opinion, that
strict adherence be given to notice and hearing requirements with
respect to any development which is permitted. In this regard, we
must be mindful of the requirements of Section 24 -8.12 which
require that any "final plan" shall conform to and contain all
information required by Section 20 -15 of the Code and, in addi-
tion, contain the construction schedule, landscaping plan and PUD
agreement provided by Sections 24- 8.9(b), 24- 8.9(e) and 24 -8.6,
respectively, all of which shall be recorded. I believe that a
final development plan can accomplish all of the stated objectives
and requirements and, at the same time, leave open the extent of
development to be permitted in connection with certain components.
Therefore, I believe that it would not be unreasonable for the
City Council to approve the lodge component and all major subdivi-
sion considerations with which a residential component might
impact, leaving for some future date the specific development of
the free market residential components. If the City Council, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Office would recommend
this approach, I would suggest that the permitted development of
the residential component be strictly regulated in the abstract
and the developer would be taking a. risk that automatic approval
of the residential component as desired would not be forthcoming.
At a minimum, most of the matters set forth in Section 20 -15 of
the Code should be satisfied, as well as a treatment of the
improvements required under Section 20 -16 as they may relate to
the residential component.
5. Also keep in mind the effect of recording a final plat
pursuant to Section 24 -8.22. Once a PUD final plan is recorded it
constitutes the development regulations applicable to the area and
limits the development of the real property to uses, density, con-
figuration and all other elements and conditions set forth in the
plan. Additionally, the language of Section 24- 8.26(b) permits
amendments if "they are shown to be required by changes in the
conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or
® •
Memorandum to Sunny Vann
August 10, 1984
Page Three
by. changes in community policy ". These provisions may be liber-
ally construed to allow refinements or amendments which are anti-
cipated by the final plan that goes on record. The key language,
in my mind, is that any changes approved in the final plan" shall
be recorded as amendments to the final plan in accordance with the
procedures for the filing of initial approved plan documents ".
6. One of the drawbacks of a staged preliminary review is
the possibility of arguments by those who oppose the project that
the hearing process was not comprehensive enough; that the City
deviated from its own regulations, that citizens were and are con-
fused by the magnitude of the project, etc., etc. If the devel-
oper seeks accommodation through the form of a staged review and
asserts that it is necessary to bring the project on line in a
timely and costly fashion, it is worth remembering that it is the
developer who ultimately shoulders the risk of a court reversal or
judicial review of an accommodation.
I hope the above comments are helpful. I again point out that it
is important for your office and the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion to consider from a purely planning perspective problems which
are created in facilitating the project's review and implementa-
tion on a staged basis.
PJT /mc
Doremus & c ®m Pang
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866
August 2, 1984
AUG - 3 04
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Need to phase the.preliminary PUD application of the Lodge
portion of the Aspen Mountain Project.
Dear Sunny:
This letter, on behalf of the Aspen Mountain Project applicants,
is to formally request the phasing or staging of the Preliminary
portion of the PUD application. This procedure was accepted at
the Conceptual stage and we feel worked to the advantage of all
parties enabling the City to isolate and concentrate separately
on the details of each of the two essentially independent ele-
ments of the PUD. The mere bulk of the required material in the
'apblications.themselves favored separate reviews. At the same
time, the applicants were sensitive to the fact that the entire
project was being considered as a single PUD with certain aspects
which cannot properly be segregated, and placed strong emphasis
on adequately covering those issues in the first review.
It is generally agreed that the code is vague and interpretive on
a split.PUD application. In our memorandum to you dated April 8,
1984 on the subject of: Suggested procedure for Preliminary PUD
stage for hotel phase of the Aspen Mountain Project, we `quoted
Section 21 -12 (Q) of the Aspen code which states that "Where the
preliminary plat covers only part of the subdivider's adjacent
holdings, a sketch plan for such other lands shall be submitted,
and the proposed streets, utilities, easements and other improve-
ments of the tract under review shall be considered with reference
to t'.,.e proposed development of the adjacent holdings. We went on
to su5� ;gest that there is nothing in the code which specifically
pro'�irits this.staging.
Many arguments can be made in favor of separating the lodge
component of the project from the residential in addition to
the ease of review stated above. Not the least of which is the
urgency to make financial and scheduling arrangements in order
to move ahead with construction. In the absence of Preliminary
approval, design development cannot go forward. In the absence
of design development architectural plans, bids cannot be
Sunny Vann -2- August 2, 1984
obtained and therefore financing cannot be concluded. Finally,
there is an issue totally outside our control which is the
existence of geologic hazards associated with the -Top of Mill
residential portion of the project. This issue is being studied
and a report prepared by the Colorado Geologic Survey, over which
we have no control. Our Conceptual approval for the Lodge com-
ponent of the project expires October 2nd, 1984. We have deter-
mined, as.a result of meetings with our prime.contractor, that
in order to.begin construction first thing next spring, for a
completion of the.west wing for operation beginning the 1986 -87
winter season, we must phase the Preliminary application. The
Ski.Company and others have publicly stated that until the
short -fall of accommodations in the community is addressed, the
economy of Aspen will seriously suffer, particularly,during the
reconstruction period of thE, so- called Cantrup holdings.
May we.suggest this approach - that we be permitted to submit a
bifurcated Preliminary Submission for the Lodge component of
the PUD which would be reviewed and acted upon forthwith. Immed-
iately following.the Lodge submission, with a date certain, the
Residential portion would be prepared so'that it could be re-
viewed and acted upon following the Lodge application. If; for
any reason an issue arose regarding a'matter of PUD concern
which was not adequately addressed in the Lodge component, the
material in the Residential application would be available by
that time for review. In this way the issues relating to the
entire PUD could be dealt with and the interests of the City
will be protected.
We ask for your earliest.response to this matter.
Ve incerely,
ohn Doremus
Planning Coordinator
JD. /ght
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303)925 -6866
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GMP /Subdivision
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publ
November 20, 1984, at a meeting to begin
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in
S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider
Preliminary GMP /Subdivision Submission for
PUD.
is hearing will be held on
at 5:00 P.M., before the
City Council Chambers, 130
the Aspen Mountain Lodge
the lodge portion of their
For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S.Galena,
Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020, ext. 224.
s /Perry Harvey
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 18, 1984.
City of Aspen Account.
ucr z 611 ► �
IPLANNING ®FF'ICfE
B. GALENA
iLORADO 01611
P _
r
N01' L')I�:1..] VIRAE::L.1 =: f`�: [3111 =;E :3`.�
1_ji 1�a1��1_.l•� '1'Cl F [:1Rbdfa!°t.D �;
Doremus &.company
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866
MWMnP AMnTTM
APR - 1984
TO: Sunny Vann Planning Director
City /County Planning Office ASKN / PITKIN CO;
FROM: John Doremus and Joe Wells PLANNING OFFICE
DATE: April 8, 1984
SUBJECT: Suggested procedure for Preliminary PUD stage for
hotel phase of the Aspen Mountain Project.
I.- General - Critical to the Lodge's proceeding, as.we see it,
is a determination by the City that the applicant.may either
divide the original PUD into two PUD's (the Hotel project, as
the first and the three residential projects as the second), or
treat the PUD as a phased project, with detailed review of the
residential projects to be handled after consideration of the
Lodge phase. Either approach is acceptable to the applicant,
but we are concerned about interpretations of other Code
provisions that might cause.one approach to be preferable to
the other.
Section 21 -12 (Q) of the code states that "Where the preliminary
plat covers only a part of the subdivider's adjacent holdings, a
sketch plan for such other lands shall be submitted, and the
proposed streets, utilities, easement's and other improvements of
the tract under review shall be considered with reference to the
proposed development of the adjacent holdings ".
We have determined that there is nothing in the Code which
prohibits this staging. As result of meetings with the
contractor, we have determined that this is the only procedure
which will allow the hotel project to begin construction in 1984,
completing the new facilities by the spring of 1986. The Ski
Company has publicly stated that until the shortfall of
accommodations in the City of Aspen is addressed, the economy of
Aspen will seriously suffer, particularly during the reconstruction
period of the so- called Cantrup holdings.
Page 2
Further, it is also clear to us that the issues of conceptual
approval of Top of Mill by the City Council and P & Z approval of
the Applicant's proposed employee housing must come prior to the
formal consideration of the Preliminary and Final Plat reviews.
A final consideration critical to the process is a
determination that we may submit the Preliminary and Final Plat
concurrently for simultaneous review, the sole purpose of which
is to speed the process to allow construction to begin in 1984
for a first phase one completion in the spring of 1986.
II. Subdivision Requirements - With respect to the various
specific sections of the Code having to do with the Preliminary
and Final Plat proceedures, we ask for your comment on the
following:
A. Section 20 -12
A new-plat and necessary attachments prepared under the
direction of Alpine Surveys will specifically address
Preliminary Plat items (a) through (q) for Lot 1 of the
Aspen Mountain PUD.
B. Section 20 -15
A new plat and necessary attachments prepared by Alpine
Surveys will specifically address Final Plat items (a)
through (n) for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
Because of the separation of Lot 1 into its own PUD phase,
there may be certain elements of the entire Aspen
Mountain PUD which you, and perhaps the Engineering
Department, wish to accompany the Lot 1 Preliminary and
Final Plats. Such items as utility improvements, street
design and parking may fall into this catagory. Please
indicate those areas to us as soon as possible.
Page 3
C. Section 20 -16
We will provide plans for all of the improvements
identified in this section for Lot 1 as well as
those for the balance of the PUD where further
architectural design work does not affect these
improvements. Some of the items listed for off -site
improvements will be resolved through the Lodge
Improvement District program; however, off -site
utilities are well under way and should not be
affected by the District.
D Section 20 -18
It is our interpretation that only the 700 South Galena
residential units are subject to the provisions of
paragraph A. As 700 South Galena will be included
in phase 2 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, the application -
under consideration does not apply. With respect to
paragraphs B, C D and E, the necessary easements to
comply with paragraph C with respect to the Dean Street
Trail, will be submitted with the application.
E. Section 20 -23
C. Item 1 is supplied as a requirement of Preliminary
Plat, Item 2 would only be required for conversion and
is not applicable; Item 3 will be provided'as part of
the PUD requirement section;
Items 4 and 5 will be prepared as required; Item 6
has or will be prepared as part of the Conceptual
Application as well as Item 7.
III. PUD (REQUIREMENTS)
A. Section 24 -8.5
As we have mentioned, a determination needs to be
made as to whether splitting the PUD into two parts
should technically be treated as a phased PUD or two
separate PUD's. We would like to treat the Lodge
site separate from the three residential projects;
Page 4
we believe that each of the two parts complies with the
general PUD requirements. We are concerned, however,
about your past reluctance to include non - contigious
parcels under one PUD and the effect that might have on
how 700 South Galena is handled. We remind you that
there is no requirement for contiguity under the PUD
provisions.
B. Section 24 -8.6
This section requires the applicant to enter into an
agreement with the City upon final approval
suggesting that this agreement can be the same as the
"subdivision agreement ". We have not uncovered
anything in the subdivision section which describes
such an agreement.
C. Section 24 -8.9
We will comply with the Preliminary Plan requirements
of this section in its entirety for Lot 1 (including
20 -12), and provide data regarding maximum
development and construction plasing for the balance
of the site. Architectural floor plans and all
exterior elevations will be provided for Lot 1 as
required. The Final Plan submission will comply with
20 -15 and 24 -8.2.
D. Section 24 -8.14
Mandatory PUD will not apply to Lot 1.
E. Section 24 -8.16
Final plans will include a landscape plan and
a written statement for.Lot 1 in compliance with
24 -8.16. Final landscape plans for the other sites
will not be provided at this t ime,and we anticipate
that final landscape plans for off -site improvements
will be developed as a part of CCLC's program.
344:
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 1983
system. Busch said as a community, Aspen should use every quality marketing tool available
The trolleys can be basic transportation as well as a unique feature. These trolleys
are irreplaceable. Summers said he did not generate any interest in a group wanting to
run the trolleys in Aspen with their own money. He did generate interest from other towns
to buy the trolleys and run their own system. Busch told Council the agreement with
Michael Hernstadt is that he would take care of the trolleys; he has not done so.
Councilwoman Michael asked if there was business interest in town that would operate the
trolleys. Pil Dunaway said he is in favor of the.trolleys because they would be an asset.
However, people do not like the overhead wires and the noise. On the other hand, people
would like the uniqueness of the trolleys. This would be a good shuttle from Rubey park
to the Rio Grande. Dunaway said he felt this would be a service to the community and is
a needed shuttle in the downtown core. This should be a city function, just as the buses
are a city function. jl
Summers told Council the CCLC voted in favor of keeping the trolleys as a possible alterna-
tive in the central core area and requested Council not sell the trolleys. Councilwoman
Michael said the closer Rubey Park comes to being a transportation center, the. more
important the trolleys become. However, the city Council has a capital improvements plan
with many, many items that are day -to -day needs. Councilwoman Michael said she would like
more information on the routes, what this would do to the streets, etc. Councilwoman
Michael said the city should either sell the trolleys or do something with them.
Councilman Knecht moved to keep the trolley cars for an additional year; look at the whole
thing with the CCLC, and with the transportation group, and see if something can get
accomplished next year; seconded by Councilman Parry.
Mayor Edel said that the assumption that the trolley cars are a positive element is an
assumption at best. Mayor Edel said he felt for Aspen they are far from positive. 14ayor
Edel said h ere is a list of $25,000,000 of capital improvements before Council for
approval. Mayor Edel said no private enterprise will come forward to finance this.
Mayor Edel reiterated there is a list of $25,000,000 improvements that are essential to
the health,.safety and well being of the city. The city has spent a lot of money::to get
rid of wires, now this would necessitate putting wires back. Mayor Edel said the city
wants people to walk through town and to spend money in the town. Mayor Edel said.iie felt
trolleys we {e inappropriate in Aspen and they are a mistake financially. ,
Councilman Parry said he felt trolleys would be a great asset. A trolley from Rubey Park
to the Rio Grande is an essential link in the entire transportation system. Busch pointed
out that two city studies have recommended shuttles. Terry Harp said shuttles could be
used for the design conference, the M.A.A. skier shuttles, walking tour, etc. Harp told.
Council he has been asked to run shuttle with his horses for six years. Har,) suggested
selling the trolleys and have a carriage maker build trolleys that could be pulled by
horses.
All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion Carried. Councilmember.s Michael
and Parry left Council chambers (it was the last M.A.S.H. series). it
EDELWEISS CHALET RECONSTRUCTION
Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is the first project in the lodge L -3
rezoning action that is requesting reconstruction permission. P & Z has approved the
reconstruction of the lodge. The proposal is to tear down the existing lodge and build
the Hotel Lenado. Approval has been given for rebuilding to the 1:1 FAR. Council needs
to exempt the employee unit, a 400 square foot studio unit. The applicant is also asking
that the newly developed lodge be condominiumized. Ms. Penne pointed out there are twelve
conditions recommended by P & Z. In condition 8, the applicant would like to delete ,
"the use of five clean - burning designed wood stoves and an energy efficient fireplace" and
replace, "that the applicant must abide by newly proposed city air pollution regulations
in the form they are finally enacted by the city ". Ms. Penne told Council she felt this
is fair. Ms. Penne said condition 11 is about a promissory note in the amount of 30 per
cent of the fair market value. Council has the authority not to require this promissory
note. P & Z has to send this condition up; Council has the ability to waive this. Ms.
Penne pointed out that since the old lodge is being torn down and a new one reconstructed,
it is somewhat unnecessary. The staff recommended that condominiumization not be finalized
until the building is completed.
Councilman Knecht moved to grant subdivision exception for the purposes of lodge condomini-
umization, GMP exemption for the construction of one studio employee unit and a parking
exemption for that unit to the reconstruction of the Edelweiss Chalet, subject to the
conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 with change, 8 with change, 9, 10 and 12 in the planning
office memordandum of February 28, 1983; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilman
Collins said he has had preliminary talks with the architect about some engineering, however
he does not feel this is a conflict. Council agreed. All in favor, motion carried.
NICK'S FRESH SEAFOOD
City Manager Chapman told Council Councilman Parry asked this be on the agenda. Nick's
t
Seafood is primarily a wholesale operation with limited retail. They would like o move
to an S /C /I zone. When they approach the building department, they were informed retail
sales are not permitted in the S /C /I zone. Councilman Collins suggested this proposal
should go through the proper channels, and they should make an application to F & Z.
Council agre,:d.
RESOLUTION_ 6, SERIES OF' 1983 �. -nne, Davis: Horn Impr_eve,aents
Assistant City Manager Ron Mitche(ll said that Council has already approved these improve-
ments by motion; they need to foxes alize them. These improvements are a fence and to
enciose one room.
Councilman F.ech- moved to approve esoliif-i-on €o, Scra2s of 1983; seconded by r��:r,cii:aan
Collins. Al:. in favor, mct_oic caarr'ed.